Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO077A_CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT T?0077A FILE COOT L DQ NOT Rr.I VE. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ' For CARL'S JR RESTAURANT AND ' RETAIL STORE IN THE ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Prepared For CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 REVISED ' DECEMBER 1991 1 Moyle, Grover 8. Associatos 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY For ' CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT ' AND RETAIL STORE IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared For 1 ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD �oF�ssrt NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 r��'F-Y Moy��c�yc No. 0692 REVISED DP•1 31-92 sr 3 ' DECEMBER 1991 'TF �civt��Fl3 TRAFFIC No. 0890 OATS &C- ' maq Mohie, Grover&Associates 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS E TI N PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 ' 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 3. STUDY INTERSECTIONS 1 ' 4. COMMITTED PROJECTS 1 5. REGIONAL GROWTH FACTOR 5 6. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 5 6.1 Trip Generation 8 6.2 Trip Distribution 8 6.3 Trip Assignment 8 7. ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS 8 8. INTERSECTION CAPACITY 8 UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 9. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING 15 . ' 10. SITE ACCESS 15 11. SUMMARY 15 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE ' 1 Study Intersections 4 2A Trip Generation Rates and Existing Project Trip Ends 6 ' 2B Trip Generation Rates and Project Trip Ends 7 3 Study Intersections One Percent 13 Analysis Summary 4 Study Intersections ICU Analysis Summary 14 (1991) 1 _ ' LIST OF FIGURES FIGIME 1 Location Map 2 t2 Site Plan 3 3 Trip Distribution- Project- 9 ' Inbound 4 Trip Distribution- Project- 10 ' Outbound 5 Peak Hour Inbound A.M./P.M it Traffic Volumes -Project ' 6 Peak Hour Outbound A.M./P.M. 12 Traffic Volumes - Project I ' APPENDICES APPENDIX ' "A" Committed Projects List ' "B" Regional Growth Factor "C" Trip Generation Rates and Trip Generation Survey "D" One percent Analysis and ICU Work Sheets ' Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study ' 1. INTRODUCTION ' The purpose of this report is to present the findings of a traffic impact study for the proposed construction of a Carl's Junior Restaurant and a Retail Store at the intersection of Campus Drive and Van Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The Carl's Junior Restaurant will contain 4,200 square feet and the Retail Store will contain 3,822 square feet. Currently, on site there exists a sit-down type restaurant of approximately 9,500 square feet. This existing facility will be replaced by the Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail ' Store. The location of the project site is as shown in Figure 1. The specific site plan is as shown in Figure 2. ' The entrances to the project site are through Campus Drive (right-in and right- out only) and Van Karman Avenue, as shown in Figure 2. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ' The major access roads to the development are Von Karman Avenue, Campus Drive, MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Boulevard and Birch Street, as shown ' in Figure 1. The area surrounding the development is served by a well de- veloped road network. Due to the various land uses such as commercial, offices, restaurants, etc. in the vicinity of*the development, traffic on all the ' major access roads ranges between moderate and large volumes. Also, most of the intersections are signalized and have exclusive left-turn pockets. The study analyzed seven intersections as recommended by the City of Newport Beach staff. ' 3. STUDY INTERSECTIONS ' The City-recommended seven study intersections are shown in Figure 1 and are listed in Table 1. The intersections are analyzed for both the A.M. and the P.M. peak hours according to the City guidelines. The study intersections are analyzed for the following conditions: ' 1. Existing volumes 2. Existing plus growth factor plus committed project volumes ' 3. Cumulative traffic volumes (i.e. including project traffic) The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values are determined based on ' criteria of analysis recommended by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phas- ing Ordinance and Methodology. 4. COMMITTED PROJECTS ' The City Traffic Engineer provided a list of committed projects in the vicinity of the study intersections. Also, provided were the anticipated cumulative ' traffic volumes from all committed projects. The committed projects are those projects already approved by the City which could be in various stages of development or completion. The list of committed projects is given in Appen- dix "A". �� 1 1 ' Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study 1 1 ' OR. SITE 73 Q p� fit. a ? 0 PHF. H ar IftViNE c�, BA/yT 2 1 eq/sly � Sr sr ' IRVINE NEWPORT ' BEACH _ CREEK I CHANNEL OR. Q`50 ' Si ' = STUDY ' NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTIONS 1 mGiq LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 NP-LOC-2 ' 2 1 . 3niaa s4�l�Ii� y r^ F. i a ' ? d um In A •idS 138 9—X3i1 3dA1 ; I y At a .9 .L9 .S .9 -------------------- 1 L j � ' ❑ ❑ W W i �.t � 1 r � ❑ 1 Q • oa 1 LIT 1 r. I vy NOT TO SCALE rn MGq SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 NP-LOC-2 ' Carl's junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study ' TABLE 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS* 1. Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard ' 2. Jamboree Road/Birch Street 3. Jamboree Road/Campus Drive 4. MacArthur Boulevard/Birch Street 5. MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive 6. Bristol Street/Campus Drive 7. Bristol Street north/Campus Drive * As recommended by the City of Newport Beach t 4 ' Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study ' 5. REGIONAL GROWTH FACTOR ' The City provided the annual growth factor rate along all major access roads to the project. These growth rates varied, depending on the area of the City under consideration in the study. The City supplied growth rate chart is given in Appendix "B". The largest growth factor is 5% on MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. 6. • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ' This study analyzes the traffic for the Year 1991 and includes all necessary steps as recommended by the City. The following sections deal with trip generation, trip distribution and trip assignment. 6.1 Trip Generation ' The trip generation rates were obtained from two sources: 1. For the Carl's Junior Restaurant (fast food) trip genera- tion rates for the A.M. and P.M. peak periods were obtained from MGA's survey. The trip generation for the P.M. peak period was increased by 25%. The trip generation survey is given in Appendix "C". 2. The City-supplied trip generation rates for the retail store and existing restaurant (given in Appendix "C") ' A trip generation survey was conducted to determine the A.M. peak hour trip ends by the project. The peak hour established-was between 7:45 and 8:45 A.M. Driveway volumes were collected between 6:45 to 10:00 A.M. for three days and three identical locations. The trip generation survey data and analysis for the peak period are given in Appendix "C". ' From the trip generation analysis, it was determined that the number of trip ends generated by Carl's Junior between 7:45 and 8:45 A.M. is 18 ' in and 18 out trip ends. The I.T.E. trip rates for the same A.M. period and P.M. period are almost equal. Hence, in order to accom- modate some additional trips during P.M. peak period the trip ends during A.M. period were increased 25%. That is, the P.M. peak period in and out trip ends are 22.5 and 22.5, respectively. The trip generation rates and the peak period trip ends are given in Table 2A for the project. tThe project generates an estimated 2,836 trip ends per day. Trip rate per day (24-hours) was obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Handbook, 5th edition, 1991. The Carl's Junior Restaurant generates 2,665 trip ends per day and the retail store generates 171 trip ends per day. The existing restaurant generates 917 trip ends per day. ' Tables 2A and 2B show the trip generation rates and trip ends for exist- ing and proposed development. ' S TABLE 2A: TRIP GENERATION RATES AND EXISTING PROJECT TRIP ENDS N „K. 0 Y TRIP GENERATION RATES N r. A.M P.M PEAK HR. PEAK 2-1/2 HR. PEAK HR.. PEAK 2-1/2 HR. LAND USE UNITS(S.F) IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT s REASTAURANT,SIT-DOWN 1000 .8 .01 2 .025 5.4 2.3 13.5 5.75 0 LAND USE EXISTING TRIP ENDS REASTAURANT,SIT-DOWN 9500 7.6 .095 19 .238 51.3 21.9 128. 54.6 " * TRIP GNERATION RATES: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0 b �s TABLE.2B: TRIP GENERATION RATES AND PROJECT TRIP ENDS TRIP GENERATION RATES A.M P.M w PEAK HR. PEAK 2-1/2 HR. PEAK HR. PEAK 2-1/2 HR. h o' LAND USE UNITS(S.F) IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT FAST FOOD REAS.* 1000 18 18 45 45 22.5 22.5 56.3 56.3 RETAIL(GENERAL) ** 1000 .6 .5 1.5 1.25 1.9 2 4.75 5 PROJECT TRIP ENDS y LAND USE TRIP ENDS o FAST FOOD REAS.* 4200 75 75 187 167 94 94 235 235 RETAIL(GENERAL) ** 3822 2 1 5 2 7 7 . 17 17 TOTAL 77 76 192 189 101 101 252 252 EXISTING PROJECT TRIPS(TABLE 2A) 8 1 20 2.5 51 22 128. 55 69 75 172 186 50 79 124 197 PASS BY TRIPS (30%) 20 22 51 55 15 23 37 59 FINAL PROJECT TRIP ENDS 49 53 121 131 35 56 87 138 * TRIP GNERATION MGA'S SURVEY, SEE APPENDIX FAST FOOD RESTAURANT: CARL'S JUNIOR " **TRIP GNERATION RATES: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (APPENDIX "B") y 2 a Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study The final trip ends generated by the proposed development was esti- mated by subtracting the existing project (restaurant, sit-down) and ' 30% pass-by trips as recommended by the City Traffic Engineer. These calculations are shown in Table 2A. The final trip ends shown in Table 2A are used in the ICU Analysis. ' 6.2 Trip Distribution The trip distribution of the project generated traffic was done in consul- tation with the City Traffic Engineer. Taken into consideration were the existing turning movement volumes and anticipated routes by employees and customers to the project. Also taken into consideration ' were the existing network and land uses. The trip distribution to the project site is as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows the in- bound and Figure 4 shows the outbound trip distribution of project generated traffic. It should be noted that the access on Campus Drive is "right-in" and "right-out" only. 6.3 Traffic Assignment Trip assignment involves determining the estimated number of trip ends that will use the road network based on trip generation and trip distribution. The project generated traffic assignment during the A.M. and the P.M. peak hours is shown in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 5 shows the inbound project traffic assignment during the A.M. and the P.M. peak hours. Figure 6 shows the outbound project traffic assignment during the A.M. and the P.M. peak hours. The cumulative trip ends are given in the ICU work sheets in Appendix "D". 7. ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS In conducting one percent analysis per.the City of Newport Beach guidelines, ' one percent of the 2 1/2 hour A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes are utilized to determine if the project's corresponding 2 1/2 hour peak hour traffic volume exceeds or is less than the above volume for all approaches at the study intersections. In case the project volume "DOES NOT EXCEED" the one percent-of the existing plus regional growth factor plus committed project volume, no ICU ' analysis is conducted for that particular peak hour for the intersection. On the other hand, if the project traffic volume "fails" the one percent test, that is the project volume exceeds one percent of the existing volume plus regional growth factor volume plus committed project volume, an ICU analysis is performed. Table 3 shows the summary of one percent analysis. 8. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' As seen from Table 3, only two intersections need ICU analysis per the City guidelines for the P.M. peak period. The intersections are Jamboree ' Road/Campus Drive and MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive. 8 Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Tra c act Stud I 25X� - 20% 25% 10% PROJECT® � � -/ S11E f�407. / s x �MipyFCSpy pR � 20X � • 15 /25� 2 � . GS SITE ��40% 5 57 15X 15% 73 �� m J� Q o� y1• �10X 107 15X� 0 10% a 00 1 Gq�l sT � 15X ASE• 0�� H sl cai IRNIKE T 107. sT 15% IRVINE NEWPORT 10% BEACH CREEK OR. CHANNEL I0\E00 6RS\� 15% LEGEND -- = INBOUND = STUDY INTERSECTIONS NOT TO SCALE 1 MCA TRIP DISTRIBUTION- PROJECT FIGURE 3 I� 9 Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study 4Ox PROJECT SITE' 5 20% 15%2 5 �10 Ml SOH �i OR 10% 15% �? SRE �. S y Pig 73 GQ' m 15 5. yam. 107. 0 15% is �0 15% 107. N ST 15IRMNE 1 9'S'g Sr S, �15% IRVINE- i � NEWPORT 101w BEACH CREEK CHANNEL DR. SPN 109:� 115% I LEGEND ' = OUTBOUND = STUDY ' NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTIONS 1 ' ��� TRIP DISTRIBUTION - PROJECT FIGURE 4 OUTBOUND 10 ' Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study 11/6 9/12 PRITE � 21/1 6f 32/1 11/6 5/3 Af/�y fCS pN oR P 9/12 8 5 7/15 S SITE O,p OyS� ' 2/2 73 OT m 2/2 5 QJ GPI yam. 5/3 �C 7/5 0 5/3 5/3 IRNNE O,pisT � 5/3 ST J� 7/5 IRVINE NEWPORT i5/3 BEACH CREEK CHANNEL DR. 5/3 /7/5 LEGEND ' XX/YY = A.M./P.M. VPH. = STUDY NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTIONS 1 ��� PEAK HOUR INBOUND A.M./P.M. FIGURE 5 TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PROJECT ' NP-LDo-2 �1 1 Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study 1 21/22 1 P SIiECT® 13 4 10/12 1 3/26 /8 5/6 7 M/�yF�SON OR r i 10/12 5/6 P� r s �. oQ cq�ipGs 0/8/8 r 4 m 7/8 8/8 73 0 7/8 / 8/8 0° 7/8 5/6 pG�( �f z • N ST IRMN rB�'sT°� � sT • sT r 5/6 IRVINE NEWPORT i BEACH CRK CHANNEL EE DR. 5PN 5/8� �7/8 LEGEND 1 XX/YY = A.M./P.M. VPH. = STUDY 1 NOT TO SC:A1� INTERSECTIONS 1 • 1 ��� PEAK HOUR OUTBOUND A.M./P.M. FIGURE 6 TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PROJECT 1 NP-LOC-2 12 ' Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study ' The ICU analysis requires that the ICU values at the study intersections be determined for existing conditions, 1991 base conditions using existing vol- umes plus regional growth factor plus committed project volumes and with cumulative volumes that include project volume. The results of such an analy- sis is given in Table 4. ' The ICU value exceeds 0.9 with existing plus regional growth factor volume plus committed project volume at Jamboree Road/Campus Drive and MacAr- thur Boulevard/Campus Drive during P.M. peak period. The ICU values are shown in Table 4 for the study intersections. The addition of "project traffic" volume does not alter the ICU values as shown in Table 4, during P.M. periods at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive; MacArthur ' Boulevard and Campus Drive. Thus, mitigation measures are not required per City guidelines as the ICU values are not changed due to the addition of project traffic. TABLE 3 STUDY INTERSECTIONS ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ' Do the Intersections Satisfy One Percent ' Study Intersections Analysis? ' A.M. P.M. 1. Jamboree Road/ Yes Yes MacArthur Boulevard ' 2. Jamboree Road/ Yes Yes Birch Street 3. Jamboree Road/ Yes No Campus Drive ' 4. MacArthur Boulevard/ Yes Yes Birch Street ' 5. MacArthur Boulevard/ Yes No Campus Drive t 6. Bristol Street/ Yes Yes Campus Drive 7. Bristol Street north/ Yes Yes Campus Drive Needs ICU Analysis 13 TABLE 4 STUDY INTERSECTIONS ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY 1991 EXISTING EX.+R.GR+COMMITED CUMULATIVE STUDY INTERSECTIONS A.M P.M A.M P.M A.M P.M N 1.JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BLVD * .51 .48 0' kf m • 2.JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST. * .47 .55 3.JAMBOREE RD/CAMPUS DR. ** .62 .69 :96 .74 .96 .74 • a 4.MACARTHUR BLVD/BIRCH ST. * .64 .59 5.MACARTHUR BLVD/CAMPUS DR.*** .62 . .69 .74 .74 ti 0 6.BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR.* .75 .69 7.BRISTOL ST.NORTH/CAMPUS DR.* 1.11 .83 * INTERSECTIONS SATISFYING ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS ** INTERSECTION NOT SATISFYING ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS ONLY DURING A.M PEAK PERIOD ONLY *** INTERSECTION NOT SATISFYING ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS DURING P.M PERIOD ONLY EX. : EXISTING, R.GR: REGIONAL GROWTH FACTOR, COMMITTED:COMMITTED PROJECTS CUMMULATIVE - CUMMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUME(EXISITING + R:GR + COMMIFtED + PROJECT) 0 ti 2 a ' Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study ' 9. ON-SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING ' On-site circulation and parking is as shown in the Site Plan in Figure 2. The major access (driveways) to the project are through Von Karman Boulevard and Campus Drive. The access on Campus Drive is a restricted access with "right-turn in and right-turn out" only. ' The ten storage spaces provided for the drive-through area of the restaurant are anticipated to be adequate. Hence, no significant problems are expected to occur due to the project traffic on-site. Adequate parking has been provided per the City guidelines. 10. SITE ACCESS As mentioned in the above section, the site access is through Von Karman Boulevard and Campus Drive. It is recommended that the proper pavement ' markings and traffic control devices be provided at both driveways. A sepa- rate left and right-turn lane are recommended at the Von Karman Boulevard access. The Campus Drive access is right-in and right-out only. 11. SUMMARY ■ The project generates approximately 2,836 trip ends per day, with ' Carl's Junior Restaurant generating 2,665 trip ends and the Retail Store generating 171 trip ends per day. Reducing the project generated trip ends due to existing land use at the site, the project generates an esti- mated 1,917 trip ends per day. ■ The A.M. and P.M. peak period trip rates for the Carl's Junior project ' were obtained through a survey (Appendix "C"). ■ A total of seven intersections were analyzed for LOS. ' ■ Intersection of Jamboree Road/Campus Drive and MacArthur Boule- vard/Campus Drive do not satisfy 1% analysis and need ICU analysis per the City guidelines during P.M. peak period. ■ The addition of the project do not alter the ICU values at the intersec- tion of Jamboree Road/Campus Drive and MacArthur ' Boulevard/Campus Drive (Table 4) during P.M. peak period. Thus, no mitigation measures are required at these study intersections. ■ The project traffic does not have any significant impact on the study intersections. ' 15 1 II • I 1 APPENDICES 1 I I 1 1 APPENDIX "A" ' Committed Projects List ' TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE REPORT ON .APPROVE3 PROJECT VOLUMES PROJ-NER ALL PROJECTS ON FILE APPROVED VOLUME IS WEIG:i ' 001 HUSHES AIRCRAFT *1 100% OCCUPANCY ' OC2 SUNSETTED 000 % OCCUPANCY 003 FAR 'WEST SAVINGS AND LOAN 100% OCCUPANCY OC4 SUPERSEDED 000% OCCUPANCY 005 AERONUTRONIC. FORD.._ IOOX OCCUPANCY- • - ' 006 BACK BAY OFFICE 100X OCCUPANCY 007 BOYLE ENGINEERING 100X OCCUPANCY 008 CAL CANADIAN aANK—.. 100%. OCCUPANCY -- - ' 009 CIVIC PLAZA 089% OCCUPANCY 010 CORPORATE PLAZA 030% OCCUPANCY O11 KOLL C.E.NT.E.R.. NEW?0-R.T_. 100%. OCCUPANCY- , 012 MACARTHUR COURT 100% OCCUPANCY 013 SUPERSEDED 0009 OCCUPANCY 014 SUPERS.ED.F_'—. -- 0002 OCCUPANCY---- 015 ORCHARD OFFICE 100% OCCUPANCY 016 PACIFIC MUTUAL PLAZA 100% OCCUPANCY 017 _3701. BIRGH__OFFIC = 100% O,CCUPANCY•-- - 018 NEWPORT PLACE O8o% OCCUPANCY ' 019 SUNSETTED —_ 0007 OCCUPANCY ,02o , _BANK OF NE.WPORT - 100% OCGUPA.NC-Y• 021 BAYSIDE SQUARE 100% O'CCUPAN'C'Y ' 022 SEA ISLAND 1007 OCCUPANCY G23 BAYWOOD APARTMENTS__ 100% OCCUPANC-Y 024 HARBOR POINT HOMES 1002 OCCUPANCY 025 ROGER' S GARDENS 1002 OCCUPANCY ' 02.6 _. _ SEAVIEW LUTHERAN_QLAZA 10.0 L OCCUPANCY----- - 027 RUDY BARON 1007 OCCUPANCY 023 QUAIL BUSINESS CENTER 100% OCCUPANCY 029 441 N.EWPORT_ SLVD�____ 100% OCCUPANCY- 030 MARTHA 'S VINEYARD 100% OCCUPANCY 031 VALDEZ 30OX OCCUPANCY ' 032 COAST- BUSINESS CENSER loot OCCUPANCY 033 KOLL CENTER NPT NO. 1 TPP 0001 OCCUPANCY 034 SEE PROJECTS 340 TO 343 0002 OCCUPANCY 035 ROSS MOLLARD 100%- 0•CCUPA-NGY 036 SUNSETTED 000% OCCUPANCY 039 HUGHES AIRCRAFT #2 100% OCCUPANCY 040 SUPERSEDED -- 100X- OCCUPANCY ' 041 FLAGSHIP HCSPITAL 1004' OCCUPANCY 042 SIG CANYON 10 029% OCCUPANCY 043 FUN ZONE _ 100%- OCCUPANCY 044 MARRIOTT HCTEL _ 1001 OCCUPANCY 045 ST. ANDREWS CHURCH 100% OCCUPANCY 046 YMCA OOOZ OCCUPANCY 047 ALLRED CONDOS 1002 OCCUPANCY ' 048 MORGAN DEVELOPMENT 100% OCCUPANCY 049 FOUR. SEASONS HOTEL 1'00X OCCUPANCY 05G UNIV ATH CLUB TPP 4 EMKAY 100% OCCUPANCY 051 BLOCK 400 MEDICAL 100% OCCUPANCY 053 SEE PROJECTS 330 TO. 533 000% OCCUPANCY TRAFFIC PHASING ORCINANC= REPORT ON A?P ROVE 0 PRCJECT VOLUMES 034 AMEND NO 1 14CARTHIJR CCURT 052A OCCUPANCY 056 AMENDMENT NO 2 -FORD AERC 100% OCCUPANCY ' 057 CARV :R GRAN,VILLE OFFICE 1002 OCCUPANCY 058 CORONA DLL MAR HOMES 1003 OCCUPANCY 059 aIG CANYON VILLA APT$ . 0002 OCCUPANCY 060 1400 DOVE STREET 0002 OCCUPANCY C61 1100 QUAIL STREET 000% OCCUPANCY 062 SUPERSEDED 000% OCCUPANCY 063 KOLL CENTER TPP AMEND . 4A 000% OCCUPANCY 064 SUNSETTED 000% OCCUPANCY 065 ROSAN' S DEVELOPMENT 090X QCC.UPANC-Y. 066 SLOCK 500 NPT CTR PROJ 1GO7. OCCUPANCY 068 NEWPORT AQUATICS CENTER 045X OCCUPANCY 069 2600 E COAST H.WY 10OX OCCUPANCY__ 070 JASMINE PARK 100% OCCUPANCY 071 SUNSETTED OOOX OCCUPANCY 072 NEWPORTER INN EXPANSION 10OX OCCUPA.NC_Y__ 073 SUNSETTED 000% OCCUPANCY 074 SUNSETTED 0002 OCCUPANCY 075 FASHION IS RENAISSANCE 100% OCCUPANC_Y___ 07o SUNSETTED OOG% OCCUPANCY 077 CDM SENIOR PR04ECT 100X OCCUPANCY ' 073 POINT DEL MAR _- 1001. OCCUPANCY-. . 4r "oJ-19 -RA'CIFIC CLUB 100% OC'CUPAN*" O80 SUNSETTED 0009 OCCUPANCY ' 081 NEWPORT SEACRES_T APT 100y. 0CCUPA.NCY_ 083 3800 CAMPUS DR(•M-STORAGE) GOO OCCUPANCY OE4 HOAG CANCER CENTER 0002 OCCUPANCY 085 EDWARDS NEWPOR-ILCENTER 0007. OCCUPANCOL_ 086 SEASIDE APTS (MESA II) 1COX OCCUPANCY 0`37 VICTORIA STATION (OFFICE) 100X OCCUPANCY 088 3760 CAMPUS DRCM-STORAGE) 000% OCCUPANC_Y__. ' 089 NEWPORT IMPORTS. 1OGX 0CC.U,P.ANCY 090 SUPERSEDED 000% OCCUPANCY 092 MARINERS' MILE_MARINE CTR 100% OCCUPANC.Y__ 093 15TH STREET APARTMENTS 1001 OCCUPANCY 094 SEASIDE APARTMENTS III 1009 OCCUPANCY 095 NPT eAY RETIROINT IWN OOOX OGGUEAN.CY ._ 096 NEWPORT CLASSIC INN 000% OCCUPANCY 097 MARINERS CHURC& EXPANSION 000% OCCUPANCY 098 MCLACHLAN-NEWP_O.RT PL 000X. 0CC.UFANCY ._ 099 1501 SUPERIOR MEDICAL 000% OCCUPANCY 100 FASHION ISLAND 92 000% OCCUPANCY 101 NEWPORTER RESORT EXPAND . 000: OCCUPANCY _ 102 SUNSETTED 000% OCCUPANCY ' 103 NEWPORT LIDO MED CENTER 000% OCCUPANCY 104 VILLA POINT 0001 OCCUPANCY , 105 SHOKRIAN 0009 OCCUPANCY ' 10o 15TH ST APTS OOOA OCCUPANCY 107 ROCKWELL EXPANSION OQOX OCCUPANCY 108 ANDREW RESTAURANT 600% OCCUPANCY 109 3AL30A / NASHINGTON 000% OCCUPANCY ' 110 NEWPORT IMPORTS_.RE3T. 000% OCCUPANCY TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINAN: E RcPORT ON APPROVED PROJECT VOLUMES- 111 23TH ST MARINA PROJECT coax OCCUPANCY 112 AMBROSIA RESTAURANT 000X OCCUPANCY ' c00X OCCUP:NCY 113 CALTY/TOYOTA EXPANSION 114 OUR LADY GUEEN OF ANGrLS 000% OCCUPANCY 115 a 000% OCCUPANCY ZONTA CLUB RESID�N-TEAL OOOx OCCUPANCY• ' 116 29TH STREET ISLAND 000% OCCUPANCY 117 VILLA POINT .II 000%. OCCUPANCY - 118 TACO iiELL. CFAST FOOD) 040% OCCUPANCY ' 119 FASHION ISLAND TRANSFER 120 PACIFIC BELL SITE 1 00 CLCUP00% OCCUPANCY 340 AME.NOMENT_.NO.- 1 F-QRD- AERO rINGY—•- 341 AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AER0 000% OCCUPANCY 342 AMENDMENT N0. 1 FORD AERO 000% OCCUPANCY 343 AMENDMENT NO.- 1yOR TH FORD 100% OCCUP4NCY 530 AMENDMENT NO 1 100% OCCUPANCY 531 AMENDMENT NO 1 NORTH FORD 532 AMENDMENT NO 1 NOJMH FORD 100%_ OCCUPA'NCY 533 AMENDMENT NO 1 N-ORTH FORD 000% OCCUPANCY ' 910 NEWPORT DUNES — OAO� OCCUP-ANGY- --. 920 _.BAYVT-EW- o00% OCCUPANCY 930 CITY OF IRVINE DEV— 1 ' APPENDIX "B ' Regional Growth Factor i � ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATE COAST HIGHWAY East city limit to MacArthur Boulevard 2% MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 2% ' Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard 2% Newport Boulevard to west city limit 4% ' IRVINE AVENUE All 2.5% JAMBOREE ROAD ' Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 3% ' San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison 2% Bison to Bristol 1% ' Bristol to Campus V., ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD ' Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road 6% San Joaquin Hills Road to north city limit 3% NEWPORT BOULEVARD ' Coast Highway to north city limit 1% ' Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth. L 1 ' APPENDIX "C Trip Generation Rates (City) ' And Trip Generation Survey (MGA) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PEAR HOUR GENERATION RATES ' AM PM DAILY IN OUT IN OUT RESIDENTIAL (per D.U. ) ' Single Family .2 .7 .7 .4 11. 0 Attached medium density .2 .6 . 6 .4 8. 6 Apartments .2 .4 .4 .3 6.5 ' OFFICE (per 1000 sq. ft. ) General 1.9 .3 . 6 1.7 13 .0 Medical .6 .2 1.9 2.4 -- RETAIL (per 1000 sq. ft. ) ' General . 6 .5 1.9 2.-0 45. 0 HOTEL (per room) .6 .3 .5 .3 -10.5 RESTAURANT (per 1000 sq. ft. ) ' Quality (sit-down) .8 .1 5.4 2. 3 96.5 High turnover 7.8 7 .8 8 .8 7.5 205.0 WP:FORMAT.SDY RME:bb 8-15-91 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY AND SITE SELECTION 3.0 SURVEY DATA ' 4.0 TRIP GENERATION RATE AND TRIP ENDS 5.0 COMPARISON OF TRIP GENERATION RATES 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ' TABLES ' TABLE 1 SURVEY SITE LOCATIONS AND SIZE ' 2 SURVEY PEAK PERIOD ' 3A& 3B CARL'S JUNIOR TRIP GENERATION SURVEY DATA (October 22, 1991) 4A&4B CARL'S JUNIOR TRIP GENERATION SURVEY DATA (October 30, 1991) 5A&5B CARL'S JUNIOR TRIP GENERATION ' SURVEY DATA (October 31, 1991) 6A& 6B CARL'S JUNIOR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ' SURVEY DATA 7 COMPARISON OF TRIP RATES FOR ' 1,000 SQUARE FEET ' APPENDICES APPENDIX ' Jill, SITE PLANS 112" SURVEY DATA t ' Carl's Junior Trip Generation Study ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to present the findings of a trip generation survey conducted for Carl's Junior during the A.M. peak hour only. The results of this report are intended for use-in estimating the number of trips that are generated by Carl's Junior on weekday A.M. peak hours. Carl's Junior belongs to the fast food restaurant category as described in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I.T.E.) Trip Generation Handbook, 1991. ' 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY AND SITE SELECTION The first step was to identify potential sites near the proposed Carl's Junior in Newport Beach. The location of the proposed Carl's Junior is shown in ' Figure 1. Three Carl's Junior sites were located close to the project site. The surveyed Carl's Junior site plans are given in Appendix "1". Table 1 gives the details of the sites selected for trip generation analysis. ' TABLE I ' SURVEY SITE LOCATIONS AND SIZE PARTICULAR LOCATION CITY SIZE Carl's Junior "A" * MacArthur Blvdd Irvine 2,950 SF Main St. ' Carl's Junior "B" * Birch St./ Newport 3,000 SF Bristol St. Beach Carl's Junior "C" * Culver Drd Irvine 3,460 SF Michelson Rd. * All the surveyed Carl's Junior have drive-through facilities. ' As mentioned earlier, the trip generation for Carl's Junior was to be deter- mined during the A.M. peak hour on weekdays. The survey was conducted at each of the above locations as given in Table 2. TABLE 2 SURVEY PEAK PERIOD PARTICULAR TIME DATE AND DAY t Carl's Junior "A" 6:45 A.M. to October 22, 1991 10:00 A.M. (Tuesday) Carl's Junior "B" 6:45 A.M. to October 30, 1991 ' 10:00 A.M. (Wednesday) Carl's Junior "C" 6:45 A.M. to October 31, 1991 ' 10:00 A.M. (Thursday) ' 1 ' ' Carl's Junior Restaurant and Retail Store Traffic Impact Study tM,�FCSpN OR Cq�p Pam. SITE Gs 73 Jam• J5 Q 0 � 00 pJE• �. ST � . IRNNE O��G ep�ST � ' eRiyl� � Sr Sl ' IRVINE ' NEWPORT BEACH CREEK CHANNEL Q,E�O DR. gpN = STUDY NOT TO SCALE INTERSECTIONS ' mGC.' LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 NP-LOC-2 2 ' Carl's Junior Trip Generation Study ' The methodology for selecting the potential sites was based on the similarity of the surrounding areas from traffic point of view, size of restaurant, and acces- sibility (presence of drive-through facility). The selection of the sites were done in consultation with Carl's Junior staff•and later approved by City Traffic Engineer. The specific site plan of the proposed site and that of the three ' survey Carl's Junior are given in Appendix "A". 3.0 SURVEY DATA ' The survey data was collected at the three Carl's Junior as listed in Table 1 during the A.M. peak period, as given in Table 2. The trip ends in and out of the driveway that were coming "only" to Carl's Junior were recorded during ' the survey hours (7:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M.) for three days. The survey data is presented in Appendix "B". ' The average size of the surveyed site is approximately 3,150 square feet and the proposed Carl's Junior at Newport Beach is 4,200 square feet: The largest Carl's Junior surveyed was approximately 3,500 square feet. All traffic counts ' at the site were done manually. 4.,0 TRIP GENERATION RATE AND TRIP ENDS ' The trip generation rates were derived from actual measurements of traffic on the driveways of Carl's Junior. The peak periods at the three sites of actual trip ends during every 15 minutes of the three hour survey A.M. peak period ' is given in Appendix "2". The graphs are given in Appendix "A" with survey data. The peak period of traffic at the project site in Newport Beach was established between 7:45 and 8:45 A.M. by the City Traffic Engineer. The average trip generation rate for 1,000 square feet of restaurant was determined using the survey data for the three days of survey between 7:45 and 8:45 A.M.. The ' survey was conducted during weekdays only. The results of the trip genera- tion analysis are presented in Tables 3A to 6B. The average trip rate for 1,000 square feet using the three day survey data is 18 in and 18 out trip ends. 5.0 COMPARISON OF TRIP GENERATION RATES A comparison of trip rates (trips generated) during A.M. peak hours per ' I.T.E. trip rates and survey trip rates are shown in Table 7. TABLE 7 ' COMPARISON OF TRIP RATES FOR 1,000 SQUARE FEET A.M. P.M. * ' SOURCE IN OUT IN OUT I.T.E. 28.3 27.2 28.9 27.8 ' Survey 18 18 22.5 22.5 * The A.M. surveyed trip generation rate was increased by 25% to obtain P.M. peak ' period trip generation rate. 3 TABLE 3A: CARL'S• JUNIOR TRIP GENERATION SURVEY DATA @ A.M 7:45 - 8:45 n Particular IN OUT N -1 Carl's Jr. A * 77 77 0 (2950 S.F) Carl's Jr. B * 84 82 b (3000 S.F) n Carl's Jr. C * 48 48 (3460 S.F) p Average Trip Ends 69 69 y 2 TABLE 3B: TRIP GENERATION RATE PER 1000 SQUARE FEET A.M 7:45 - 8 :45 Particular IN OUT Carl's Jr. A * 25 25 Carl's Jr. B * 28 27 Carl's Jr. C * 16 16 Average Trip Ends 23 22 @ Survey taken on 22 October, 1991, Tuesday. A * Carl's Junior located at Macarthur Blvd and Main Street, Irvine. B * Carl's Junior located at Birch Street and Bristol Street, Newport Beach. C * Carl's Junior located at Culver Drive and Michelson Road, Irvine. TABLE 4A: CARL'S JUNIOR TRIP GENERATION SURVEY DATA @ A.M 7:45 - 8:45 Particular IN OUT T Carl's Jr. A * 35 41 0' (2950 S.F) Carl's Jr. B * 83 82 (3000 S.F) n Carl's Jr. C * 42 40 (3460 S.F) °a Average Trip Ends 53 54 a TABLE 4B: TRIP GENERATION RATE PER 1000 SQUARE FEET A.M 7:45 - 8:45 Particular IN OUT Carl's Jr. A * 11 13 Carl's Jr. B * 27 27 Carl's Jr. C * 14 13 Average Trip Ends 17 17 @ Survey taken on 30 October, 1991, Wednesday. A * Carl's Junior located at Macarthur Blvd and Main Street, Irvine. B * Carl's Junior located at Birch Street and Bristol Street, Newport Beach. C * Carl's Junior located at Culver Drive and Michelson Road, Irvine. TABLE 5A: CARL'S JUNIOR TRIP GENERATION SURVEY DATA @ A.M 7:45 - 8:45 Particular IN OUT N Carl's Jr. A * 36 46 0' (2950 S.F) Carl's Jr. B * 53 47 (3000 S.F) Carl's Jr. C * 36 33 w (3460 S.F) C Average Trip Ends 41 42 a TABLE 5B: TRIP GENERATION RATE PER 1000 SQUARE FEET A.M 7:45 - 8:45 Particular IN OUT Carl's Jr. A * 12 15 Carl's Jr. B * 17 15 Carl's Jr. C * 12 11 Average Trip Ends 13 13 @ Survey taken on 31 October, 1991, Thursday. A * Carl's Junior located at Macarthur Blvd and Main Street, Irvine. B * Carl's Junior located at Birch Street and Bristol Street, Newport Beach. C * Carl's Junior located at Culver Drive and Michelson Road, Irvine. TABLE 6A: CARL'S JUNIOR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY SURVEY DATA A.M Peak Hour Average Particular Time Survey IN OUT N C Carl's Jr. A * 7:45-8:45 A.M Oct. 22, 91. Tuesday 69 69 0 (2950 S.F) Carl's Jr. B * 7:45-8:45 A.M Oct. 30, 91. Wednesday 53 54 b L1 (3000 S.F) a Carl's Jr. C * 7:45-8:45 A.M Oct. 31, 91. Thursday. 41 42 a. (3460 S.F) $ Average Trip Ends 54 55 a TABLE 6B: TRIP GENERATION RATE PER 1000 SQUARE FEET A.M Peak Hour Average Particular Time Survey IN OUT Carl's Jr. A * 7:45-8:45 A.M Oct. 22, 91. Tuesday 23 22 Carl's Jr. B * 7:45-8:45 A.M Oct. 30, 91. Wednesday 17 17 Carl's Jr. C * 7:45-8.:45 A.M Oct. 31, 91. Thursday 14 13 Average A.M.Peak Hour Trip Rates for 1000 S.F 18 17 @ @For calulation purposes the average in and out trip rates are 18 and 18 respectively. For the P.M peak hour the rates are increased by 25% . A * Carl's Junior located at Macarthur Blvd and Main Street, Irvine. B * Carl's Junior located at Birch Street and Bristol Street, Newport Beach. C * Carl's Junior located at Culver Drive and Michelson Road, Irvine. ' Carl's junior Trip Generation Study ' 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ' The main conclusions of this trip generation survey are; 1) The peak period used for determining trip generation rate from the surveyed data was between 7:45 and 8:45 A.M. 2) The average trip rate during the A.M. peak hour between 7:45 and ' 8:45 A.M. of survey was 18 for inbound and 18 for outbound for 1,000 square feet. 3) The average trip rate during the P.M. peak hour between 4:00 and 5:00 P.M. was established by increasing the A.M. surveyed peak period trip rates by 25% (22.5 inbound and 22.5 outbound). I ' 8 TRIP GENERATION STUDY A.M. PEAK PERIOD CARL'S JUNIOR ' FOR 1 CARL'S JUNIOR 1 P.O. BOX 4999 ' ANAHEIM, CA 92803 (714) 491-4351 1 1 1 ' PREPARED BY � mG� Mohle, c3irovar 8� Associates ' NOVEMBER 1991 1 TRIP GENERATION STUDY A.M. PEAK PERIOD 1 CARL'S JUNIOR 1 . i 1 FOR ' CARL'S JUNIOR 1 . i 1 �tpFESSICyyq[ �Ep1RY * N . 692 %. PREPARED BY EXp.,2- 1-92 ' rlgr Clvi�- 3 F CF• ' TRAFFIC No. 0690 DATE: 9 9 r ' mag 1 Mohie, Grover& Associates 1 1 ' APPENDIX " 1 " Site Plans I� � if•, - � .. ,I.'.f•`f'i.�' � ~. a .. . • iT�,,J��"'� 'qq"• UTFFFFFA 1 — (11111` IIIIII�I " (Lllllfllllllllnillllilllll'I� �L ..{• G L ly��wvv 1.. __ L 101, 1 1✓i )' IR .�•M G — „mac _ ©`•„ILS" � —Y�yroiil - s `• rr )'.': - !i'dc WdLr Ln1•ILT'• � ! ',� -`IM-_ , ._s _i_= I aT1 — '(f= ..)i `t Lila ueT oWole`o ef'0 i� .1. __-__ �_� a} •. iui: � _�_ c - _ �_ e. ��i•I _ Ilew 94.1WIary slwL.Wd nd.n'�d •In(Y$� is .•, "f ulwefa�-'+' .a. �<- i � - =t �-2;i _ G..cgYLLt cN. YJ.I'tlr Mid )�- u• �, 'e. K'�"}L�ir)•)LL"i' G L_ �• ,� _• � L• •_!� .' �Z I G Li eTtl�Mi 1o.11.0��.tiLt OS !f1 •1 atklw 9c 0 1 L s ILL y � � Oe L •r: LD ra Ve ; W_ •�3 iS: 1 �H1L�hC9iL{C i •t. ,! ' �..°.:� � .,�FTMy' ��� Il, - .: '' .i , . ' •• .. • .. •:' .. , . . .:41 ..: }:� :'.o lre.f'F;'.l:.r4 .. . . ; 'a•_. }��+�1 F r'.C•fr.Salk::SZ:.+,ivu..>..:1.:.n.Ls..:.n11....>" -Lr.,r.:a..:Ys,i:I n::iu,.:S:Ls 'ir J�•s�L .,Y.�.L•a ') '".._1{lY+�t11.r:Lv:w.Wti<it '..r-r.. ._.:,.. -. /> w REMMWACF a 5 ~ r� VF \ rol lilk dJ WITALWACE dd 1J a 6 �• - '(DAL 102 FAWOR ,, vu. , I H.J I I I if, 14 1 11 1 "` wAlslbu ea � •• � •• • � PMIt{LPlAR /'..�/ I a 4 Jam._ n�ol•.,� 6J�LC IJee —4nFW vlwe— 2 _ C J ry{QeM1 P __ r. -'__�. , wok ♦ p®..� �>� �/ � uF1:5 JF. u, Hfnu4J. I �/ t✓8y� / t.ronMc _ _41-a n•ol '.el F1J� I L_ ze_o '- '_t�✓ :d li.ol _ I QQ cenwr Orr ce � 1 j � - i j w N " I � —fWM1e.'" U e BOLDING '5L"lAF.Y .�•' � WafM• OFo'• •q Pvf.•e s.aui a pvc ycM• rv^i-•• anw•i i_ u ri Cv�'J t� I of OiR/'I. frHW aytu ci P� �4�e:r•a'1-d I 9as� YI V i . an SHEET NUMBER I APPENDIX 112" t Survey Data ` ' ' DRIVEWAY • • Blvd VEHICLES PER 15 MINUTES 1 25 20 15 1 G G G G G 1 11 1 : 11 : : 1 : • 11 • • 1 A.M. PERIOD INBOUND OUT13OUND Newport1 DRIVEWAY VOLUMES • • Blvd VEHICLES PER 15 MINUTES 1 25 20 15 G G G G G i 1 11 1 : 11 : : 1 : • 11 • • 1 • A.M. PERIOD INBOUND OUTBOUND Newport1 1 1 CARL'S JR. DRIVEWAY VOLUMES Location: Macarthur Blvd @ Main St. VEHICLES PER 15 MINUTES 30 25 20 -- -- 15 - — -- — — - 10 — - — - -- 5 — — - - - -- 0 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 9:15 9:30 9:45 A.M. PERIOD INBOUND ® OUTBOUND City: Newport Beach; THU-10/31/91 I CARL'S JR. DRIVEWAY VOLUMES Location: Birch St. Off of 73 Freeway 40 VEHICLES PER 15 MINUTES 30 20 — — --- -- -- -- — --- - 10 — -- — - - - -- 0 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 9:15 9:30 9:45 A.M. PERIOD INBOUND ® OUTBOUND City: Newport Beach; TUE-10/22/91 DRIVEWAY VOLUMES Location: Birch St. Off of VEHICLES ER 15 MINUTES 1 • • 1 30 0 1 11 1 i 11 i i 1 : • 11 • • I • A.M. PERIOD INBOUND % OUTBOUND Newporte ' DRIVEWAY • • Birch St. Off of VEHICLES ER 15 MINUTES 1 • 25 20 15 1 G 1 1 1 C 1 1 : • 1 C • 1 1 • • 1 • . A.M. INBOUND OUTBOUND Newport1 ` ' ' DRIVEWAY • • 1r. @ Michelson ' • VEHICLES PER 15 MINUTES 25 1 — 15 1 / Eli / G 11 1 i 11 i i 1 i • 11 • • 1 • A.M. PERIOD INBOUND OUTBOUND NewportBeach; CAR ' DRIVEWAY • • 1r. @ -Michelson ' • 25 VEHICLES PER 15 MINUTES / -� 15 1 f 11 1 11 i 1 i • 1 / • • 1 A.M. INBOUND OUTBOUND • • WED-10/30/91 CARL'S JR. DRIVEWAY VOLUMES Location: Culver Dr. @ Michelson Rd. VEHICLES PER 15 MINUTES 25 20 15 10 -- -- — — ----— — — . _ 0 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00 9:15 9:30 9:45 A.M. PERIOD INBOUND ® OUTBOUND City: Newport Beach; THU-10/31/91 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-22-91 ' NORTH-SOUTH ST: MACARTHUR BLVD. DAY: TUESDAY EAST-WEST ST: MAIN ST. PROJ NAME: CARL'S JUNIOR _-_•_____________________________________•--_----___-•_-__-••___•-•----•---__----___------------------------- ... GOING GOING ' TIME ___ __ ______ __IN Wi_____.__ AM 7:00 5 3 7.15 18 10 ' 7:30 14 16 7:45 22 23 _________________________________________________________________________________ _____--____________ TOTAL 59 52 ' 8:00 17 15 8:15 20 20 ' 8:30 18 19 8:45 19 16 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ TOTAL 74 -- ' 9:00 12 20 9:15 13 10 9:30 14 9 . 9:45 13 18 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ TOTAL 52 57 1 ' - INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-22-91 ' NORTH-SOUTH ST: 8IRCH ST. DAY: TUESDAY EAST-WEST ST: OFF OF 73 FREEWAY PROJ NAME: CARL'S JUNIOR .................................•--_-•---__--•-_-----__---•-__----__---__•--__-•-_-_------- --___ GOING GOING ' - TIMEIN OUT' ' AN 7:00 7 4 7.15 11 9 ' 7:30 11 15 7:45 17 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' TOTAL 46 37 ' 8:00 22 22 8:15 29 29 ' 8:30 16 22 8:45 18 15 -' - ---------------------------------------------•---------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 85 ' 9:00 21 22 9:15 15 17 9:30 17 19 9.45 15 15 --- --------------'-----------------------'---------------------------------------•--------- TOTAL ' - INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-22-91 NORTH-SOUTH ST: CULVER DRIVE DAY: TUESDAY EAST-NEST ST: MICHELSON RD. PROJ NAME: CARLtS JUNIOR _______________________________________•_-___--__----___--•-•___----_--•-_-_---_--•--------------------------------- GOING GOING IN OUT. ' ------ TIME AM 7:00 9 5 7:15 9 9 ' 7:30 8 9 7:45 13 14 ---------- TOTAL 39 37 ' 8 00 12 9 8:15 14 12 ' 8:30 9 13 8:45 10 9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ TOTAL 45 43 ' 9:00 17 12 9:15 11 15 9:30 19 18 9:45 21 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------67 TOTAL 68 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY ' H.K. TRAFFIC DATA CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-31-91 'NORTH-SOUTH ST: CULVER DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY EAST-WEST ST: MICHELSON RD PROJ NO: ----------------------•----------------------------------------------•--------•-------------------------------------- ' CARS GOING CARS GOING IN OUT TIME --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM 6:50 1 3 6:55 8 1 ' 7:0 5 7:05 4 4 4 7:10 0 3 7:15 2 0 7:20 0 1 7:25 4 0 7:30 5 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' TOTAL 25 20 ' 7:35 6 2 7:4040 4 4 7:45 3 8 7:50 4 3 ' : 6 6 8:0000 9 8 8:05 3 3 8:10 4 2 8:15 ----•------ 3 2 ' TOTAL 42 38, i t ' INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY N.K. TRAFFIC DATA ITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-31-91 WORTH-SOUTH ST: CULVER DRIVE DAY: THURSDAY EAST-WEST ST: MICHELSON RD PROJ NO: r _•____________________________________________•-____•_____--____-____-____-___••__•---------- --"" CARS GOING CARS GOING IN OUT -- TIME AM 8:20 1 3 ' 8:25 3 2 8:30 3 4 8:35 41 8:40 2 2 8:45 0 4 8:50 5 -n0 8:55 5 3 9:00 3 7 ' TOTAL 26 26 9:05 6 1 9:10 5 3 9:15 1 5 ' 9:20 1 3 9:25 6 2 9:30 1 4 ' 9:35 0 1 9:40 2 1 9:45 2 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 24 23 1 I INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY H.K. TRAFFIC DATA CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-31-91 NORTH-SOUTH ST: MACARTHUR BLVD. DAY: THURSDAY 'EAST-WEST ST: MAIN ST. PROJ NO: ---------------_--------------------__________________________________________ ---- CARS GOING CARS GOING IN OUT TIME --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'AM 6:50 5 4 6:55 6 2 7:00 5 4 ' 7:05 6 3 7:10 4 4 7:15 6 3 7:20 3 6 7:25 6 2 7:30 2 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 43 34 7:35 6 9 ' 7:40 9 6 7:45 5 6 7:50 6 6 7:11 10 7 8:0000 7 6 8:05 2 8 8:10 4 7 8:15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 49 56 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY ' H.K. TRAFFIC DATA t TY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-31-91RTH-SOUTH ST: MACARTHUR BLVD. DAY: THURSDAY ST-NEST ST: MAIN ST. PROJ NO: IN___________________ _____________ ___-•-___-••___________________•-__...-__-•CARS GOING CARS GOING OUT TIME 8 IAM ___________________________________________5 2 :20 8:25 4 2 ' 8:30 3 6 8:35 7 5 8:40 5 4 ' 8:45 3 3 8:5050 4 2 8:55 4 5 9:00 4 ----------- ----'---------------------------------------------- --------- TOTAL 39 -- ' 9:05 4 6 9:10 4 4 9:15 4 1 9:20 6 4 9:25 5 5 9:30 4 7 9:35 8 6 9:40 57 9:45 4 3 TOTAL 44 43 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY H.K. TRAFFIC DATA ITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10=31-91 rORTH-SOUTH ST: BIRCH ST. DAY: THURSDAY ST-WEST ST: OFF THE 73 FREEWAY PROJ NO: --------------------------------------------------------•----------_.---..--_-.------_------------------------------- CARS GOING CARS GOING IN OUT TIME --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,IWf 6:50 4 3 6:55 1 1 7:00 2 0 ' 7:05 0 1 700 6 3 7:15 8 5 7:20 4 7 7:25 7 6 7:30 10 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 42 36 7.35 3 7 ' 7:40 5 7 7:45 7 2 7:50 5 6 7:55 5 9 ' 8:00 4 7 8:05 6 4 8:10 3 3 8:15 -------------------------------------------- TOTAL 45 48 s ' INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY III H.K. TRAFFIC DATA ITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-31-91 ORTH-SOUTH ST: BIRCH ST. DAY: THURSDAY AST-WEST ST: OFF THE 73 FREEWAY PROJ NO: CARS GOING CARS GONG •IN---------------------------------------------------"'-------___--- _' ..."'...""...".'_.-"'..."'-'--.."' OUT TIME -- AN 8:20 5 6 ' 8:25 10 _3 8:3030 8 6 8:35 5 7 8:40 7 4 8.45 5 9 8:50 5 7 8:55 5 8 9:00 9 -------------------------"'---------------------------------- TOTAL 59 56 ' 9:05 7 6 9:10 3 7 9:15 4 2 9:20 4 3 9:25 6 5 9:30 3 8 9,35 2 2 9:40 4 9:45 4 TOTAL 37 39 I INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY H.K. TRAFFIC DATA 'CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-30-91 NORTH-SOUTH ST. MACARTHUR BLVD, DAY: WEDNESDAY 'EAST-NEST ST: MAIN ST. PROJ NO: --------------------------•_--------------.--_----------_---._------.--_-----------..--------_---------------•-•----- ' CARS GOING CARS GOING IN OUT TIME --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'AN 6:50 5 4 6:55 4 2 7:00 4 3 ' 7:05 7 2 7:10 4 5 705 10 3 ' 7:11 3 3 7:25 6 3 7:30 5 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 48 30 7:35 6 4 ' 7:40 8 8 7:45 4 7 7:50 3 6 7:55 5 4 8:00 2 4 8:05 4 4 8:10 3 4 ' 8:15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 41 43 I I INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY N.K. TRAFFIC DATA kITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-30-91 NORTH-SOUTH ST: MACARTHUR BLVD. DAY: WEDNESDAY JST-WEST ST: MAIN ST. PROJ NO: •----------•------ ••----------' ____________________________________________•CARS GOING CARS GOING IN OUT TIME 8:20 6 6 5 8:25 3 6 8:30 3 8:35 4 4 8:40 6 3 8:45 7 3 ' 8:50 5 2 7 8:55 4 900 10 4 TOTAL 48 40 9:05 7 19 ' 9:10 5 8 9:15 6 7 9.20 6 2 9.25 6 9 9:30 8 6 9:35 4 12 9.40 6 6 ' 9:45 4 -...- -- -- ' ---' - . TOTAL 52 66 ' INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY H.K. TRAFFIC DATA CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-30-91 'NORTH-SOUTH ST: BRISTOL ST DAY: WEDNESDAY EAST-WEST ST: OFF THE 73 FREEWAY PROJ NO: -•-------------------------•---..------•------.-.---.---.---•.----••------•-.---•-•-------•----•---•-•••-----•--••--- ' CARS GOING CARS GOING IN OUT TIME •-•--••---•-•---•-_--••-•----•----••---•-------•••---••--.------••--•---•--•_-•------------•••-•.--------•---••----•- AN 6:50 6 14 6:55 6 6 7:00 7 5 7:05 9 5 7.10 12 10 7:15 10 8 7:20 11 8 7:25 11 7 7.30 14 11 •••-----.-.-•-------------•-----.•.---•--------•-•--------•------..-•----•..----••---------------.•--.•..--. TOTAL 86 74 ' 7:31 6 9 7:4040 10 9 7:45 9 9 7:50 9 10 7:55 7 3 8:0000 17 13 8:05 9 11 8:10 6 13 ' 8:15 TOTAL 77 84 1 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY H.K. TRAFFIC DATA CITY: NEWORT BEACH DATE: 10-30.91 ORTH-SOUTH ST: BRISTOL ST DAY: WEDNESDAY AST-NEST ST: OFF THE 73 FREEWAY PROJ NO: ...................---------.._.----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CARS GOING CARS GOING IN OUT TIME ----8--:20 9 6 - ------------------------------------------13'--- -'- -"-- -'---' --- - '--- - --'- - -.. 3_........ 8:25 76 1 8:30 9 8:35 14 15 8:40 6 13 8:45 7 9 1 8:50 11 6 8:55 10 .9 9.00 10 11 ----..._•--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 TOTAL 89 88 1 9 OS 8 6 9:10 5 6 9.15 4 6 9:20 7 3 1 9:25 8 10 9:30 9 10 9:35 10 9 1 9:9445 2 TOTAL 62 66 1 1 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY H.K. TRAFFIC DATA CITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-30-91 NORTH-SOUTH ST: CULVER DRIVE DAY: WEDNESDAY 'EAST-WEST ST: MICHELSON RD. PROJ NO: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CARS GOING CARS GOING ' IN OUT TIME --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'AM 6:50 2 3 6:55 3 2 7:00 4 2 7:05 3 2 7:10 2 3 7:15 4 3 7:2 6 3 7:25 3 6 7:30 4 '2 TOTAL 31 26 7:35 5 3 ' 7:40 4 6 7:45 4 7 7:50 5 7:55 4 3 8:00 5 3 8:05 4 4 8:10 4 5 ' 8:15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 38 41 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY ' H.K. TRAFFIC DATA ITY: NEWPORT BEACH DATE: 10-30-91 NORTH-SOUTH ST: CULVER DRIVE DAY: WEDNESDAY ST-WEST ST: MICHELSON RO. PROJ NO: CARS GOING CARS GOING IN �- OUT TIXE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AN 3:20 ' 8:255 2 9 8:3 7 2 8:3 5 5 8:40 7 4 8:45 6 10 8:50 7 6 8:55 7 5 9:00 6 8 •----------------------•------------------ ----....---------------------------------------------•-------- TOTAL 55 53 ' 9:05 3 4 9:10 4 6 9:15 7 2 9:20 5 10 9:25 2 4 9:30 8 7 9:35 7 12 9:40 7 9:45 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 47 55 1 ' APPENDIX "D'l One Percent Analysis ' and ' ICU Work Sheets i ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 91 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project ' Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2;j Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Volume ' Northbound 3873 3, ') 6 4-9 �' O C� l.� Q ;! ` i! Southbound i� 1717 3 % S 2 a 9 p 0 p 3-- ' Eastbound 832 0 C� 3� ( Q( 6 1 O� i Westbound 2184 0 % O �� � 4 ' ' i? ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected 0. Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C:U.) Analysis is required. ' CGt`f �' ^/ a ••"• • t, 1 � ' n''' DATE: ' PROJECT: FORM I ' JA427SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E-W) & MACARTHUR BL(N-S) 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING -------------1991 AM --------------------------------------------------------- ------ - I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING(EXISTING(REGIONAL(COMMITTED I PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR i V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolume I V/C I I I Capaci tyl Capacity 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 I-------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL 1 1600 1 1 538 I 0.34 1 1 1 -_--------1- 1 1 -----------------I--------i-----------------i--------i---------— I ------'------- ' NY ------ +_____--___ 1___HR_.J 4800 i__-_____i_ _ -) 0.29 - I _____________________________________________I I SL 1 1600 1 1 96 1 0.06 - I I-----------I- I I I---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------I I ST 1 4800 1 1 "9 1 0.10 1 1 1 1 I 1 I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------I l SR I N.S. 1 1 187 1 I 1 1 - - -1- 1 i 0 /� I----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------I ' I EL 1 3200 1 1 45 I 0.01 • I I I I I ___________________________________________________________________________________________i I ET 1 48001 1 2031 0.041 1 1 1 1 1 ' l ER I M.S. l i 97 I I I I __________I_ 1 I I WL I 3ZOD 1 1 64 1 0.02 1 1 1 1_ 1 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------I i MT 1 4800 1 1 712 1 0.15 * I I I I I I---------------------------------------------------------------- ____ - --------------I ' i -R I M.S. I I --- I i I I ______----I I I (EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.51 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (EXIST + REG GROWTH } COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 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 It JA427SAM ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average inter pring 19 91) PM ' Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1° of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 231 Hour Peak 231 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume, Volume Volume Volume Volume ' 1 Northbound 1974 3• a 54 a S Southbound ' 3046 3 r 6 g 3 �— ' Eastbound 26183S- ' Westbound 1791 0 193 a:Sr " ' 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 Q Peak 22,,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. nr�P4 n �J Y CC l� �. �U� � ��•f DATE• NN PROJECT: FORM I ' JA4275PH ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & HACARTHUR BOULEVARD 4275 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC MINTER/SPRING 1991 PH ---------------------------------------------•---------_- _----•---------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONIILICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI ' IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I 'PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I ICapacityleapacityl 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 --------------I I NL 1 1600 I 1 208 1 0.13 " I 1, ! I I I---HT-----------I--------I- __.___-___ _______________I 1 ss6 I I I I I I ------- 1MR 1 1 35 I I 1 1 1 1. ______________________________I -_ sL- 1- 1600 I 1 329 1 0.21 I I I I I 1 ---------------------------------------------- -------I ST 1 4800 I 1 106Z I 0.22 * I I I I I ____________________________________________________________________I i SR I N.S. I 1 721 I 1 .I J 1 I. ------------------------------------------------------� EL 1 3200 1 1 183 1 0.06 ' I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I i ET 1 4800 1 1 685 1 0.14 1 1 1 I 1 ___________________________________________________________I_______-_______ ER I H.S. 1 1 4101 1 1 1 1 1 I --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------I ( WL --1---3200 1 1 204 1 0.06 1 1 1 1 1 I i___________________________________________________________________________________________ WT 1 4800 1 1 326 1 0.07 " I I __________I. I 1______________1 WR I N.S. 1 1 2111 1 1 1 1 1 I ------------------------------------------------------I . IEXIS7ING '-------------------------i" 0.48 I I ]EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i ----_---__I_ _-_-_- ________ [EXISTING + CCMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U-----------------------------I- i _-•----------------------------------------------------- ------- ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I 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 JA4275PM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average winter/Spring 19 _ AM ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1n of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2), Hour Peak 2�, Hour Peak 2�, Hour Peak 2�, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2810 ro Southbound 4045 1., 0 �C 2� '6 1 1 b I O ' Eastbound 760 0 O �� g i 32- o ' Westbound 319 { Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected /JCS Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. H ' - ' �G./ , V �QT4tn ` S�Y e— DATE: PROJECT: FORM I JA4308AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & BIRCH STREET 4308 XIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI 'Iovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapecityl Volume I Ratio 1, Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I - I I I I I I I Volume I I I o- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I --AL 1 1600 1 1 219 1 0.14 * I I I I I -----------------------------I NT 1 1 1129 1 1 1 1 1 1 ._-__ ____ --) 4800 _-__----___ ) 0.24 _______________________________________________I NR 1 I _7 I I I I I I 1 -- - -I-- --------- sL 1 1600 I 1 S I o.ot i I I I I I ----------------------------------------------- --------- ----------- ---------------i sT 1 4E00 1 1 1233 1 0.26 * I I I I I - - - - - - - --- --- - -- - - --------- ----- ------ ---------------------------------------- ----- - I SR I N.S. 1 1 1030 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N ---EL-----------I--------i------- ---------i--------I---------I-----------i-------i------- 153 --> 3200 ------------------)- 0.05 --------------------------I 1 ET 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 ER I N.S. 1 1 271 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- ------------------------------------------------------ ___---___--__I WL I I B I I I I I I -------) __________________) -----------------------------------------------I WT 1600 1 1 B 0.02 * I I I I I I--------) ------------------> -----------------------------------------------I ----- I I to I I i I I I ]EXISTING 1 0.47 1 1 -- -- IST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. II _____----_- -------- --_--- EXISTING + CCMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 �I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 �1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ROJECT FORMAT I JA4308AM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD%i. BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volume s ase on verage inter pring 19 9 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume FVolume ' Northbound 2585 �, 6 1 4-312 43 �. Southbound 3431 ' Eastbound 1420 0 © Westbound 54 Q 0 �4 S ' }�( Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected �I 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. OCc (, {- t DATE• ' PROJECT: FORM I C308AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 BIRCH STREET 4308 XIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING _•---•--•----1991 PM IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI OMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVotume I V/C I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Votume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I . I I I I I I I Volume I I I __________•______________________ -------- -------------------------------------I ••-NL 1 1600 1 1 48 1 0.03 * I I I I I ____________________________________I _________ 1048 I I I I I I NTI 1---} 4800 __________________} 0.22 -_____-__________ ___-_________I NR I 1 D I I I I I I ____________________1 SL 1 1600 1 1 6 1 0.00 1 I I I I I I sT I 4ZOO I I1560 I _________ ________17___________________________ _________I V� .sR 1 N.S. I � z i I I I I I I ___________________________________I ___________________ _________1I1 EL 1 I562 I i I I i I - _-} 3200 __._____i__._----} 0.18 *- ---•---- 1 ET i 1 I _______I________ _________I___________!_______ ___ ___I 'I ER i N.S. 1 1 1391 1 1 I 1 1 I _. _.______.__i_ __.________1_______________I IWL I B I I I I I I __________________} ________________ _________1 ,I ur } 1600 1 1 1 0.01 * I I I I I -----------------------------------------------I 1 _WR } 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 I EXISTING __________________________i- 0.55 I i _-___ '[EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROP.OSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. i --•_--•'--I• ______I _ _________________ __ [EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ._____-_____ ______________________________________________________ 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be ' Less than or'equat 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: FORMAT I ' PROJECT JA4308PM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes seg on verage Winter Spring Peak 2k Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction Peakolurte Hour crowtVolue PeaYalumek 211 our PeaYolume k 2h Hour Peavolumeour PeaVolumeour Northbound 2529 ' Southbound 3760 �• , ��—� SS `� I q 1 II ' Eastbound 608 O0 31 Westbound 1361 0 10 941 _ill 2 I i ' 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 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. S'7ye DATE• I .-NO Y PROJECT: FORM I ' JA4305AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM ___________________________________________________________ ._--__--.-.._...__.. . EXISTING(PROPOSED I EXISTING(EXISTING(REGIONAL(COMMITTED( PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI ' IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C i ICapecitylCapacityl Volune I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I II I I I I I I I Volume I I ' i---------------------------------------------------------------------- --1 ' I HL 1 1600 1 I 99 I 1.06 - Id I K* 1 1014- o•191 S' 10.12, - I✓ i-------------------------------------------- --11 _ ------ ` ----=------I HT 1 1 1106 1 I I -------------------------------------------------- --•- •---•----_- .1 ' 1 sL I 3200 I I 2a1 I 0.09 I - I 0 1 --I_ 0 1 I ------ -----aa?� -- ----------- ------- - i ST 1 I 1454 1 �� I ��D 123.�s< //• I 4 �1 ,•• SR --) 4800 ---------I------- } 0.34 I--�----- n B'J�J'-- -0 •S31 ' I JJ IDS 1 ' I11 ------i--------i--I _-------^L--a-Ff�-------------------- � - y�` , r-_- ' O, I _._.._._ 4800 __________________} 0.06 ------------------ ET I1 • I 1 177 ' -------------------------------�-- - -----I I ER I N.S. I 1 8 I 1 1 I �- I 15,1 _______________________________ ------- _....__ WL '1 1600 I 1 256 1 0.16 + I 13 =---------------------------------------------------- ------�- -1 WT I 3200 I I 260 I 1;08 1. ---------------------- 1_________________ _ I 1 WR I 1600 1 1 146 i 0.09 1 1 (� © I 1 __________________________ _.-------------------------------- =---------- -------- 1 (EXISTING i 0.62 1 1 ___-__.-__- ..__._----_ 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I () •�` I I _-___-___-- ._.._--___1 1EXISTIMG + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I Q_Ibl -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ' I_I project + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement witt be ' - Less than or equaL to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt be Less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORMAT JA43GUM ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 19 9 PM Peak 2)g Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 3627 Southbound 4193 14. rO 4-9 5P 10 44 Eastbound 1814 0 a 0 0 ry Westbound 1578 0 (0 Z 6 a I } b ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected C Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected x Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' Gt V �� DC �irLL. SJ� DATE I S NoU F G PROJECT: FORM I �305PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS _ INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROO i CAMPUS DRIVE 4305 1991 PM IST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE GAILY TRAFFIC MINTER/SPRING - -I EXISTING IPROPOSED IEXISTING IFXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI ovroantl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio ]Volume I V/C 1 ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volumr Iw/c Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I' NL ------------------------- 52-----�------—------9- L 0:._-_[---------------- Nr I I 1206 ------) 6400 --------------3�:} 0.25 I---�---f--1-- - MR 1 SL I 3200 I 1 253 I 0.08 1 0 I fl 1 1 Q I 1 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------I --ST 1 I 1 1574 I I 402.1 ¢: go_1__d--I-d-�1 ---) 4800 ------------------} 0.40 *-------------- �'-. SR 1 1 1 362 I i O 1 g l __-_-I- S-- 1 I----- i ------- --------------------------------- _. _ I - ELI 1 1 328 I 1 0 1 I --- a•.l4--�--g-1� a.�9-I y4800 ------------------) 0.27 *---- � g _ ET I I 1 $08 I 1 0 1 Al ----I i -- Eta..I_..M.S.-1 1 104 1 1 D 1 '6 C 1 (0I -----I ------------------------------------------------------------------- I WL I 16001 1 125I 0.331 0 1 32 1 1 b 1 d �. 1 � --i-- 0 I- --I WT . 20o 1 299 1 0.09 p 0.011 ._..... .-- ------------- .- -----�--------------------------------------- I • - _•-_---- - - Wz 1600 208 0.13 I I ..-------------•_-.. I LISTING --_•-- ----------•-_•_----- -I_----------. ---- EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0-7-4 1 i -------------------------------------------------------------I-.----._---------_------_.-{ EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I-C-U. ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- --- -.__ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic t.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ' be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- oescripcion of system improvement: FORMAT I PROJECT JA4305PM ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST ' (Existing Traffic Volumes basea on AVEWd9c inter pring 19 9,} AM Peak 2h Hour Approved 71 Regional ProJects Projected 1n of Protected Project Approach Existing Growth Peak 2 Hour Peak 2�, Hour Peak 2�S Hour PeaVolumeour Direction Peak lu. Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I - _ 3 Northbound 3906 3• 7jZ� 34 S Southbound 3261 � 2— o 6 I d ' tot R31 o Eastbound 830 0 � ' O Nestbound 57 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 v IV t. , DATE: I S NOV PROJECT: FORM I MA429SAM •-� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS •- ' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 BIRCH STREET 4295 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM ------------- ' I I EXISTING IPROPOSED IEXISTINGIEXISTINGI REGIONAL ICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PR0JECTIPR0JECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I leapacityleapacityl 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 --------------------------I INL I 1600 I I 471 I 0.29 *--- -- --- -------- ---- - --- -------i---------i- 1 I I ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------I I HT 1- 4800 I 1 1557 1 0.32 1 1 1 1 1 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------I I -MR I M.S. 1 1 171 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SL 1 1600 1 1 10 1 0.01 1 1 I --- --- -I- - 1 1 ------------------------------------ ---- -------I I - ST ----_---_--i-.--.---i- 98a I I I I I I ] .I--- --} 6400 I--------i---- } 0.27 ---------------------------------------------- sR �7 I .„ _1 ' II___ ___________i_------------------------------------------------------------------------II EL 1309 1 i I I I I ___ --} ________i_ ------ ET4800 I 11 A 16 0.07 * I I __________I I I } --------------------- -------- -___-I 1--- ? 1 1 1 1--- ---- - --- ------I ' I WL I ---- I I 12 I I I I ---- ----------I -- - I I WT -1-- 3200 1 1 18 1 0.01 * I I I I I --------I--------I--------I------ '--------I--------I---------I-----------i-------i-- ---I WR N-S. _____________________________________________________i [EXISTING •-------•----------•-•-_--i- 0.64 1 I 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. II ----------_ _ ____----- ----- ' ]EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.----------------------------I- I -------------------------------------------------------- ------- I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 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 beelecsethae roC Ut without traffic Iro ectwith project improvements will Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II MA4295AM 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR"BL/BIRCH ST 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 19 PM 1 Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of ProjectedFP,,Prk oject Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Peek 2�, Hour 2�, Hour Volume Volume I 1 Northbound 1973 3. . 5 �� � 6 � + Southbound 1917 3 . S 3 eg A 3 4 2_ 01 � 1 Eastbound 1277 p ® `� 3 l Q i d i ' d 1 Westbound 1660 0>( 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 1 1 1 1 1 C(ny In V o~ DATE J N0\ 11, 4 1 PROJECT: FORM I i 3MA4295PM Esc:=• INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING -------------1991-PM- ' I 1EXISTINGI PROPOSED,EXISTING IEXISTING IREGIONALI COMMITTED, PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes ( Lanes , PK MR , V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOLume I V/C I ICapecitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume , Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ---------------------------------------------------------------I I HL 1 1600 1 1 241 1 0.15 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I NT 1 4800 1 1 671 1 0.14. 1 1 1 ____._____I_ 1 1 -------I----------------------------- --------------I I MR 1 N.S. 1 1 21 I - I I I- -- ---- I- I I _ --------------I I SL 1 16001 1 531 0.031 1 1 1 1 1 ------------------------------------I ST 1 1 639 1 I 1 ._._...1- 1 1 ------ -------------- .. SR.- 1 1 178 $1 it w1 4F— - - ,;l --------------- ------------------------------------------------------I EL 275 I I I I I I N l� _- ------- ------- _- -_ __ I 1 ET 4800 1 1 285 0.12 * I I - - -I--------------- I ___ I ' _ 1 I ER -) 1 1 34 1 1 1 1 1 I I i WL 1 1600 1 1 66 1 0.04 1 1 1' -- --- - I- 1 I---------------------------------------------- ------ -------I I WT 1 3200 1 1 599 1 0.19 * I I I I I --------I-----------------I------- I--------I--------I---------------------I-------I------- ' --------------------------------------------- ---------------I 1EXISTING 1 0.59 1 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ---___-_--i_ __-- ---------- ' 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. --------------I_ 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 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less then 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 3MA4295PM ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR ' (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on 7verage inter pring 19 9 AM Peak 231 Hour Approved Fi ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2 Hour Penk 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour PeaVolumeour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1978 1 sue' T:g Southbound 2689 V. e ' 3��T ' q 30n 30 ; Eastbound 2910 Q /� 'Q �O Westbound 983 0 .3 16 21 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. ear �A .1 v D� �06G' DATE: ' PROJECT: FORM I MA4300AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300 XIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING _-------1991 AM -- -IEXISTING[PROPOSED I EXISTING[EXISTING[REGIONAL ICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECT[PROJECT I ovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I ICapacityicapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I Volume I I I - -------- --------I----------------------------------------------------------------I NL 1 1600 1 1 53 1 0.03 I 1 1 1 1 1 ___I I---NT--i---6400 �--------i----��---0 1z . -------i---------i-----------i-------i---- 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- - ---- -----I I MR I 16001 1 581 -40.041 1 1 1 1 1 I SL i 1600 1 I 234 1 0.15 * I 1 1 1 1 _ ____________________________________I ---sT I------4800 I---------i----��i---o.16 I I I I I i ' ------------------- ' SR '1 160041 - j 2101 .0:13, 1, - 1 ::I • 'i - ------------------------------- -------I EL 1 3200 1 1 506 I 0.16 1 1 1 1 1 1 ______________________________________________________________I ET I 1 984 1 1 1 1 I I 3200 ------------------) 0.32 *---------------- --I ER I 1 43 I 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I l WL 1 1600 I I 40 I 0.03 * I I I- I - L I - --- - -I __- - - ______________I ur I 3200-1 1 232 I o.o7 I I I I I I ------------------------------------------------ ----------- ,I WR I N.S. 1 1 861 1 1 1 --------- -----------_---_-- ------______________________I__-__-_I___-___I IEXISTIHG ____________________ I 0.62 I I ___ _______________ �IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ----------I--------------- - - - --------- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ----------I I 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. u/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I 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 MA4300AM I t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage W1116c,14F, 1119 lg 91) PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1:Peak Projected Peak Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2+s Hour Peak 235 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' 291a 3O Q Northbound southbound 3270 g` 418- Eastbound a� !! 2512 3 a Westbound 2771 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peaeakk 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2.11 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Cow ( r v PC R� . e�Pl e DATE I S ' PROJECT: FORM I 1 . 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS' DR—IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Pring 19 _ AM Peak 2h Hour Approved 1 Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2;1 Hour Peak 2. Hour PeaVolumek 2h Hour Peavolumeour Volume Volume Volume Volume e� ' Northbound 4833 0 © �'? g2 O Southbound 1203 0 0' 2-1� 9" 14-11 1 1 Eastbound 6614 0 � a v I D Westbound —0— Q 1 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 i i i 1 1 ay I^ JV a ��7�� S�a�(� DATE: c' ►•�v I 1 PROJECT: FORM I �4155AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM -------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PR0JECTIPR0JECTI lovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio II 1 ------- --------�- I I ------------------- ----_--------_--------__ ___--_._-___-____.- Volume I I I NL I I I I I I I I I I ______________________________________________________________ -------1 _._-___ rHT 1 6400 1 1 1840 0.29 • I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------I HR 1 1600 1 1 454 1 0.28 1 1 1 -_____--__I_______I___.___1 SL 1 1600 1 1 $8 1 0.06 * I I I I I - --- ---- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------I Sr 1 1 I I I I I _______ I I __� 4800 --- 403 ) -0.08 ------ -------I i SR - - - -- I EL—1 ---- I i ---- 1 ---- I I I -----------. ---ET--1-_-4000 1 1 1600 1 0.40 * I I I I I ________________I_____-____________________________________ __- I ER I 3200 I 542 I 0.17 1 I 1 -�- i 1 _______ ______________I WL WT I I I I I WR __-_- _-_---- _______________________________ ___-____I (EXISTING ____________________ I_ I_ I _ _____________________________ EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. II -------------------------------------------------- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I=I Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project __________________________________________________________ ____-_____________ ' Description of system improvement: FORM II PROJECT BR4155AH 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV ' (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average inter pring 1991 PM Peak 23t Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2)1 Hour Growth Peak 22 Hour Peak 22 Hour PeaVolumeour ' PeaVolumeour Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3280 a �I �� t'' Southbound 3264 0 R ' Eastbound 6657 o 0 S 6 C 2 -�-Z D Westbound a 811D u 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. �lV n , V ty JfiN DATE• L NA/ ' PROJECT: FORM I �155PN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS LTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155 1991 PM EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING - - -I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovemantl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I CapaeitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume 1 Volume Iw/o Project) I Ratio 1 I I I I I i I Volume I I I NL I I I I I I I I I I __________________________________________ _____ -I NT 1 6400 ,1 1 1221 1 0.19 1 1 1 I - ---- -- I I --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 MR 1 1600 1 1 306 1 0.19 1 __.____!_._______I___________I_______I_____._1 ----------- -__ SL -I 1600 1 1 223 1 0.14 1 1 1 1 1 -- --- --------------------------------------------------------------------------I Sr --) 4800 ---------- 1348 } 0.28 ---------------------- SR l I I I I I I �• EL --I-__2400 I 1 455 I 0.19 I I I I I I ____________________________I 1---ET -- --- ilk 1 4000 1 1 1285 1 0.32 1 1 1 1 1 1 _- ___I__________________________k_______-________-____________________________I ER 1 3200 1 1297 I 0.41 I I I I I _____________I WL l I I I I i I I I I I I WT I I I I I i I I I I I WR _______________________ ----I (EXISTING __________________________i- 0.69 I 1 IEXiST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS [.--- - 1---_-------I--------------- 1_______________________________________________________ EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I .-•----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Project + 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 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project _________________________ ' Description of system improvement: FORM I! PROJECT BR415SPH 1 f1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 1g 91 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound a ( s4 Sq b C S 5 a 5806 t Southbound 1357 ' Eastbound _0_ O O i ' Westbound 2766 2 3 3 `l a 3 + as ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 I �J�/� DATE I ' PROJECT: FORM I ' BR4172AM _ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVIHE AVENUE 4172 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---'------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED,EXISTINGIEXISTIHGIREGIONAL,COMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI' [Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I WC I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I Volume I I I NL 1 3200 I 1 2198 1 0.69 1 1 1 1 I I ----------------------------------------------------- --- -- - I ' i_._NT__i________i_-------1 3608. 1 1 1 1 . *---------------------------------------------= I- —-- _-- 4800 0.75 i--- -- i----- - 1 I I I I I i ---------------------------------------------------------------- -------I I SL I I I I I I I I I I--------------------------------------------------------- I sT 1 2400 J 1 776 1 0.32 1 I I I I I -- - ----- ------ ---- ------ ---- - - -- --- -- - - -- i -- --=-I I---SR --i---5600 1 1 577 1 0.10 1 I I I ---------- I I EL I I I I I I I I I -----------------------------------------------------------------------' I 1 ET 1 I I I I I I I I I [ ER --I--------1- I i I I I I '1 � I ---- 1 ------------- --- -467 1 - ---- - -- ------ _ - -- - - - - - ------------------------------- 1 uL 1600 I 1 467 I o.z9 1 I I I I I ----------------------------------- -- ,---�-----------i- I 2110 [ I I I I I I 1WR I 1 189 1 1 I ------- - 1 1 1 --------------I IEXISTIHG __________________________I. ------------------ 1.11 1 I ----------------------------------- IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ._.._-----I--------------- '------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I--------- 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: FORM II PROJECT ' BR4172AM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CMeUS' 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 2k Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2 Hour Peak 2k Hour ; Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3759 0 3 g 3 3 3 g Southbound 4552 Eastbound p 0 Westbound 6g17 D -7-4-41 �q- X 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 V 04, 1 G(. I J rQ DATE: S l�bf ' PROJECT: FORM I OR4172PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172 ••- EXISTING PROPOSED•EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1991 PM i I (Movement[ lanes � Lanes -� PK HR � V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C [ ICapacity[Capacity( Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Project[ I Ratio I ' I I I I II I I volume i I I __________________________________________________________________________I • -•-HL --I---3200 I I 761 I 0.24 * I I I I I ______________________ NT [ ' I 765 i___ __ .___.___ __-.___- -'"- i 0.16___ i ______i________.i_-___ I ' I -'-NR"i 4800 i"--__..i__.____-i"""-'i-'__----i_"-""-i'-"-"'-"I ---I .I ___--'__-'__"'__--_ --'"-""'-___-"'-'"---' _--"'-""----I SL I I I I I I I I I I _____-----"'_______"""_____""'------"'_______-_--"'---------'_______"_----""'---I ' sT I 2400 I I 1244 I 0.52 I I � I I _ II _-- --1--- _ ________________i-____--_ --________-___-____-____--___1- -__ SR 5600 * I 920 0.16 * I I I I I _______________________________________________________________________________________--- I I EL I I I I I I I I I I N/A "'_'-.__""""'_""___'-__'________________________________""-'__'I ' I ET I I i I I I I "'-I I I ____________________________________________________ _-___--____-_I ER I I I I I I I I i __""'-"'-"'--"_______"'-""'-"'----"'"--""""'-'"-------'__ "__"_'_-___'-" WL I 1600 I I 470 I 0.29 I I I I I ___________________________ ____--___-____-___-_I 2606 I I I I I I 6400 ---"'----""""} 0.43 *__--'_---'_-__''-"'-""--_______---""""'I ' I uR I I 116 I I I I I I _--_._-___. - ______________________________[ (EXISTING I 0.83 I I _- -___ (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I __--______I_______________I I ' [EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U." - I I ______________'' -___-' ------------------ --- _ _ ** ASSUMES NO THROUGH'TRAFFIC IN OPTIONAL LANE I_I 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 then 0.90 [_[ 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 it BR4172PM n �F • RECEIVED NOV i 9 1991 34z4 CW�on) USE PERMIT APPLICATION No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ELLIOTT CORPORATION Application Reg d by 9Z0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fee: $— 3300.Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658=8915 (714) 644-3200 �f I"/ /�o7!"C1?C1 �/3 7l l0 C , Phone) Applicant (Print) `y7/ 4361 Mailing Address /�d�, �X 7 �1� %/7ahala n C' 7-18 O3 Leo ��//6� 014)Property owner 1/ibr7/7el- A Phone Mailing Address 73z0 ✓412 X-2, Y22 ofG0Cl2I CV Address of Property Involved 4c5 Cc4rYl�J/iJ$ �/ /✓e�GU pi^� ,5e_oc-/7 Purpose of. Application (descri a fully) iCnnevc<s� .C//YJG1)rJ, 7CnI ©" _ArevYOus/�/ go,�rt°)Vc�e>� c Zone PC Present Use i/e'9eaal Legal Dpscriptiox� ppf Prpppert Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) .� OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT G el-KO depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the property(ies) involved in this application. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the fore- going statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to tYp best of (my) (ourl knowledge and belief. Signatures) I �U L NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE Date Filed //—a D —q Fee Pd. 970 — Receipt No. Dy�:Z Hearing Date Posting Date /a -�0 47Aail Date /X —6 --f7/ P. C. Action Date - Appeal —` --- �- — C. C. Hearing C. C. Action Date OW a" 13i2�1f4� mull.) Tam I . January 9, 199ZMINUTES COMMISSIONERS 0�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL South Coast Air Quality Management District. " 7. Tha oastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the 1b: ance of the building permit for the dry cleaning facility. 8. That this use perms hall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newpo each Municipal Code. 9. That the Planning Commission add to or modify conditions of approval to this use per ' or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this us ermit upon a determination that the operation which is the s .ect of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to th ealth, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare o he community. ses A I Jse Permit No 3424 (Amended) (bblic Hearine) Item No.6 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permits UP3424A the construction of a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility in Ts No.77A conjunction with a new retail commercial building on property located in the"Retail and Service"area of the Koll Center Newport Approved Planned Community. The approval also included: a request to allow a portion of the required off-street parking spaces to be provided within the proposed drive-through lane of the facility; a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community; a traffic study, and the acceptance of an environmental document. The current proposal involves a request to amend the previous approvals by approving a revised environmental document which deletes a previous mitigation measure requiring the restriping of a portion of the intersection at Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. AND -14- January 9, 1992 . MINUTES COMMISSIONERS cnp�O G `Y.G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TKarman ROLL CALL B Traffic Study No 77 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to approve an amended Traffic Study so as to pe construction of a 3,822± square foot (gross) retail buildin 4,188± square foot (gross) drive-in and take-out restauran LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 76-45 (Resub No. 506), located at 4880 Campus D the southwesterly corner of Von Avenue and Campus Drive,in the"Retail and Service" area of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. i ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Carl Karcher Ent. Inc., Anaheim OWNER: Elco Partners, Newport Beach Commissioner Edwards stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest. I The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Lorenzo Reyes appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and-he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Gross addressed comments in the staff report that there may be a conflict with the City of Irvine regarding the intersection of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that portions of the intersection are located in the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach. Several years ago the City of Irvine imposed additional conditions on another applicant to widen the Jamboree Road and Campus Drive intersection;therefore,staff added a mitigation measure that stated that the applicant would be required to restripe the intersection prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy on the two buildings on the site. -15- . • 0 January y, iyyz MINUTES COMMISSIONERS o,,'�,c',p dr•dc� �cn�O"p�Yp G q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL The,public hearing was reopened in connection with this item, and Mr. Reyes reappeared before the Planning Commission. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gross, Mr. Reyes ,explained that the applicant disagreed with the traffic study that was prepared for the project, and a subsequent on-site analysis has indicated that the intersection will not be impacted; therefore, the foregoing mitigation measure could be deleted from the application. Mr. Hewicker further replied that-the applicant will not be required to go to the City of Irvine as previously stated. The public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3424 Ayes * * * * * * J (Amended), Traffic Study No. 77 (Revised), and related Absent environmental document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. MOTION CARRIED. A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT' Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following the mitigation measure: Fin in 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents,there is no substantial evidence that the project,as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measure identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the -16- II 0 0 January 9, 199,4 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. MITIGATION MEASURE: 1. The project's outdoor lighting system shall be designed to minimize light spillage on to the adjacent sites to the extent feasible. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building and Planning Departments that this requirement has been satisfied, unless otherwise approved by the Building and Planning Departments. B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Fin in 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major; 'primary-modified; or 'primary' street. 3. That the revised Traffic Study No. 7e indicates than one the project-generated traffic willnot b greater percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on five of the seven study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the sixth and seventh intersections indicate that the ICU values of the A.M. and P.M. peak will not be altered by the addition of the project at the intersections of Jamboree Road and Campus Drive; and MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive. -17- . • . January 9, 199E MINUTES COMMISSIONERS 9i�G'.p dr•d� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROIL CALL C, ITSE PERMIT NO. 3424 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land'uses. 2. That the waiver of the take-out restaurant development standards as they relate to perimeter fencing and a portion of the required parking (7 parking spaces) will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the proposed drive-in and take-out restaurant is part of a larger integrated development which is not conducive to such standards, but is designed in a way that meets the purpose and intent of such design standards; and adequate parking is being provided on-site inasmuch as many customers will walk to the site from the surrounding offices. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 4. That public improvements may be required'of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. Adequate provision for traffic circulation is being made for the drive-in and take-out restaurant facility. 6. That the proposed modification to the Koll Center Newport sign provisions allow two 5 foot high 32 sq. ft. menu signs, one additional 5 square foot logo wall sign and one 6 foot high ground sign will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3424 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, -18- • . January Y, IVYL . MINUTES COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INOEX ROLL CALL safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, elevations and sign plans, except as noted below. 2. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 3. That the intersection of the private drive and Campus Drive provide sight distance in conformance with City Standard No. 110-L. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That the on-site trash enclosure and Edison transformer be relocated in a location acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer so that vehicular and pedestrian sight distance is provided. 5. That the proposed monument sign at the comer of Von Karman Avenue and Campus Drive be positioned so that sight distance is maintained in accordance with the City's sight distance standard 110-L. 6. That sidewalk be constructed along the Von Karman Avenue frontage and connect to the sidewalk located on the westerly side of the access driveway located at the southerly property boundary: The sidewalk shall be six (6) feet wide meandering or eight (8) feet wide, constructed adjacent to the curb. That the existing curb access ramp constructed out into the access drive be reconstructed so that the ramp is positioned behind the curb. The design of the revised -19- . . January 9, 1992 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TCampus ROLL CALL access ramp shall be approved by the Pu Department. That all work within the public righ completed under an encroachment permit iss Public Works Department. 7. That pedestrian access shall be provided from tDrive entrance to the restaurant as approved b Works Department. 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Campus Drive or Von Karman Avenue rights-of-way. 9. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 10. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements,if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 11. That the parking lot shall be lighted in such a manner as to prove adequate illumination to all areas of the lot without causing any light or glare to impact adjacent properties. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and from adjoining streets. 13. That the development standards pertaining to walls and 7 of the required parking spaces for the take-out restaurant shall be waived. 14. That only two wall identification signs, one logo wall sign, one 4 foot high (50 sq. ft. per face) ground sign (with a 4 inch portion of the trademark star to exceed the permitted 4 foot height) and two drive-through menu signs shall be -20- • • January 9, 199 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL permitted, in conjunction with the take-out restaurant; unless otherwise permitted by the Koll Center Development Standards. 15. That the proposed directional signs shall not exceed 6 sgft. and shall not include the restaurant name. 16. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self-parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 17. That the service of any alcoholic beverages in the take-out restaurant facility is prohibited unless an amended use permit is approved by the City. 18. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 19. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks,Beaches and Recreation Department, the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works Department. 20. That 102 off-street parking spaces (including the 10 spaces in the drive-up stacking lane) shall be provided. 21. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 22. That trash receptacles for patrons shall be located in convenient locations inside and outside the building. 23. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such away as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 24. That grease interceptors shall be provided on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by -21- • • January 9, 1992MINUTES COMMISSIONERS O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL the Building Department. 25. That exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. .26. That one bathroom for each sex shall be provided and shall be made readily available to patrons of the facility during all hours of operation. 27. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 28. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. ifi i n N 2 li H n2l Item No.-7 Reque to consider amending conditions approved by the Planning Mod 3928 Commissi on November 7,1991 in conjunction with the approved No action construction 11 foot 6 inch± high retaining wall topped by a Taken tempered glass dscreen, 3 feet 10± inches in 'height, for an overall height of 1 et 4± on property located in the R-1-B District. The approved 1 is to be located on 12 contiguous lots, and is permitted to encroac within 14 feet of the front property line adjacent to East Coast High ,where DistrictingMap No.33 establishes required front yard set b ranging from 30 feet to 38 feet, and the Zoning Code limits suc onstruction to 3 feet in height. The proposed amendments to the roved plans consist of: relocating the proposed wall so as to encro to within 11 feet of the front property line adjacent to East Coast way;reducing the required number of steps the proposed wall is to set back; and planting trees in the 10 foot wide water easement a ent to East Coast Highway where no trees were originally permitted. e -22- ?= • • FILE COP` CITY OF NE"ORT BEACH r 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 DO NOT REMOVE Newport Beach,CA 9209.1768 - (714)644 345 F p y ■, NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: City of Newport ea Office of Planning and Research Planning Ir tLl ty dIL o my CIg ❑ 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Ne rt Boulevar� ox A Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport >leh-eA 926 DER" (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange XXX Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public reviewperlod will close on 1-9-192 Name of Project. Koll Center Carl 's Jr. Restaurant, Use Permit No. 3424 (Amended) Project Location: 4880 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California Project Description: Amendment to a previous use permit for a 4,188 sq. ft. drive-through restaurant and 3,822 sq.ft. retail building. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implemeatthe California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned. 144 Date i)LA /q f Jo .Douglas,AIC#' E mentalCoor ,ator Revised 11/91 FORK I. Background Iti 1. Name of Proponent Carl Kar •p, O..Box 4999 proponent Phone Number Of Prop . Anaheim Cg.92805 2. Address and 1 351 Peeember-1'r •1991 3. Date Checklist Submitted City •of• Newport. Beach Requiring Checklist I TraffIC study No. 77A 4. Agency Use,P 34 ermit•No. � 5. game of •Proposal. if applicable IZ. Faviromaeatal be" answers are required on attached (Explanations of all "Yes" and "may sheets.) yes Maybe, No tb, Will the proposal result in: 1' X conditions or in Changes in a, IInstable QB�ructures? geologic sub b: Disruptions. displacements; compaction or - overcoveriug of the soil? Change in-topography or ground surface �( relief features? v. d. The destruction, covering or modification J� o£ any unique geologic or phgsical features? Avy increase se in wind or water erosion of — x Soils, either on or off the site? . Changesion, deP Changes in deposition or erosion of so i ach f of a tion or sands. or changes in siltat erosion which may modify the channel X river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? of people or p perty to geologic g E�cposutesuch aspearthges, landslides, X hazards or similar hazards? mudslides, ground fail • - 1 - . - �••Y♦ is •v :i�. t•�,'.�:^ .. _S•:f.: -..Y I Yes a be No 2, Air. Will the proposal- esult in:;- a. Substantial air emissions or.deterioration of ambient air quality?. b. The creation of objectionable odors? c, Alteration of air movement-is moisture- Or temperature, or any change �( 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 X marine •or fresh waters? — b. Changes in absorption rates•, drainage - patterns;-`or"the rate�and;amount ofs: •- , surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of X flood waters? - — d, change in the amount of surface water in any water body? --- . .e. . Discharge into surface waters, or -in,any. :3--- alteration of surface water quality, -including but-not limited to temperature,: .. _., dissolved oxygen or turbidity? =-••• - f, Alteration of the direction or rate of �( flow of ground water? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through•direct,additions or:w3_th- . _ •drawsls, or through interception of an X .. aquifer by cuts or excavations? — A tr h. Substantial reduction in the amount of X water otherwise available.ifor public water supplies?, i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal X waves? - 2 - •`) .•! • •.h• •. .`M•t •jI•".4i• •41 `• iYS. i..•• •e4 Y '.S. i• ! '�. )• i••l�• .1(••.�• • y�, • f•y.e'iY �y Yes Maybe No � • • 1 4. plant Life: Will the!proposal-result'in:,,-,, • # x , a. Change in the•diversity.of species,- or num- ber of any spetcies of plants (including trees, shrubs,. grass; crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare X 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?.. X S. Anisal Life. Will the proposal result in. a. Change in the .diversity of species;•or num- bers of any species ofi•aninalsm(birds,•,land- --- animals including reptiles, fish and shell- X fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, x 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? •• _ x 7. Light and Glare. Will-the proposal produce new. X light or glare? 8. Lend Use. Will the -proposal-result in a sub- _ .stantial alteration of the present or planned x land use of an area? - 3 - Yes Maybe No 4. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural- resources? — — 10. Risk of upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (includiug,•: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 X plan? — — 11. Population... Will the proposal.alter.:the•location,•;. distribution, density, or -growth rate of the human X population of an area? — 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing y or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result ins a. Generation of substantial additional. X vehicular movement? . -- — „b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or X demand for new parking? — — 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?— f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? — — 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - 4 - — — yes No II a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? -- X c. Schools? d, parka or other recreational facilities? a. Maintenance of public'fadilities;: including v roads? _ 1 f. other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: E a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? - -b. Substantial •increase,.in• demand.upon existing. : .. sources or energy, or require the development X of new sources of energy? — — 16. Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations toithe following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? -- b. Cgmmunications-systems? ::xe... r •' •-• — -X C. Water? '— Sewer or se -- d. Sew tic tanks?P X e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? — L` •17 Human Mealth. Will the proposal result in?. a. Creation of any health hazard or potential _ X health heaz and excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ 5 - es 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 X — creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal.result in an existing X impact upon the quality or q�ti ty _ recreational opportunities? 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 historic building, •stracture, or object?. ential to C. Does the proposahysicallchangetwhichtwould affect X cause a physical • _ 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 o'6f oinate _ X important examples of the major periods of _ California history or prehistory? - b - es MMbe No b. Does the projeot haws 'the potential"to achieveyV v arr short-tern, to the 'disadvantage of-long-term, j environmental goals? (A short-teim impact on - the, environment is one which occurs in a vela- 'z- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will'enduri+ future.) .�, , • j,,. '— C. Does the project have impacts which are, individually limited, but cumalatively'coit- '" i siderable? (A project may impact on•two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is Yelatively'small; but where the effect of the total. of.those •impacts' on the environment is significant.) r'wi ,• , d. Does the project have emiroumental' effects .3ait£ X which will cabse siib'st'anCiAT adverse t ie£fedly?_ c on human beings, either directly or indirect — IIT. Discussion of Rovlronaental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts') Iv. Determination _. i :xtr,„�.�• :�u. r•e;. .?ezt^ nr. ?S l evaluation: t on the basis of this initial , _ ;;- I find that the proposed project COIILD;NOT •have a sogcii��aBE ; effect on the environment, aril 'a".NHGATIVE DECLARATI y_�r PREPARED. . ' ._ i : ;:. . t ti • . 4 I find that although {the proposed project -could have a 'signif- icant effect on the environment; there iviU:+`not�be:a•significant effect in this case because the mi.tigatioii measures described on an attached sheet have beeA'added to the'-0:0ectrJ_ _A. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION GILL: HE PREPARED. '- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ffi7VIR0liN8NPAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q De�eml�er' 1 1 - Signature Date C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For 7?1E 017•Y OF NEW027, FSEAeIf - 7 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATION CARUS JUNIOR ( Koll Center ) Use Permit 3424A eject Description This project is located at the southwest comer of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue of Koll Center Newport. The site is occupied by an operating full service restaurant called RJ's The Rib Joint approximately 9,500 square feet building. The existing facility will be demolished and replaced by a proposed development that involves construction of a new Carl's Jr. drive- thin and take-out food facility with 142 indoor seating capacity and a retail building that contains 3,822 square feet. The proposed project consists of two phases. The first phase of the project is the construction of the restaurant and the second phase of the project will be completion of the retail building. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts. 1. Earth A substantial portion of the site will be altered to accommodate the proposed on-site improvement. The construction activities associated with this project will result in little soil disruption or overcovering and may require compaction or soil displacement. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Codes (NBMC Sec.15.04.140)would reduce the impact to insignificant level. 2. Air During the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving may be created. However, dust will be minimised as a result of site watering required by the City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. Therefore,the effect is insignificant. 3. Water The site has already been developed and the project would not increase water runoff. Provisions for drainage requirements are 1 contained in the City's Excavation and Grading Code. The project is outside flood hazard area and no significant impact is anticipated. 4. Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. 5. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife . 6. Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction time is expected to be short due to the small scope of the anticipated project. The hours of operation are regulated by the provisions contained in the City Noise Ordinance(NBMC Chapter 10.28). The proposed site is surrounded predominantly by general office buildings and some retail commercial uses. Residential development and other noise sensitive land uses are not located adjacent to the proposed project. Noise effects are not significant and shall be alleviated upon the completion of the project. 7. Light and Glare Although exterior lighting, if required for this project, could impact adjacent properties. Mitigation Measure No. 1 shall ensure that such lighting is designed to confine and direct rays to the property to the extent feasible and avoid any significant effect. Mitigation Measure #1 The projects outdoor lighting system shall be designed to mimmi e light spillage on to the adjacent sites to the extend feasible. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building Department that this requirement has been satisfied. 2 8. Land Use The site is designated Retail and Service Commercial in the General Plan and the Zoning is Planned Community designating the site for retail commercial uses. The site's Land Use category will not be altered and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan requirements. 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. 10. Risk of Upset There is no risk of any foreseeable hazard due to upset. 11. Population No significant population increase is anticipated due to minor employment offered by this project. 12. Housing Neither housing shortage, nor demand for new housing would be anticipated as a result of this project. 13. Transportation/Circulation A traffic impact study has been conducted for the subject project indicating that additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development. The proposed project generates an estimated 2,836 trip ends per day. The restaurant portion of the project generates 2,665 trip ends per day and the retail store generates 171 trip ends per day. Although the intersections of Campus Drive at Jamboree Road and Campus Drive at MacArthur Boulevard did not satisfy the 1% analysis, the additional traffic generated by the project do not alter the Intersection Capacity Utilization values at those intersections. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. The proposed development plan indicates a total of 102 parking spaces. With the restaurant drive-tbru area, that counts for 10 parking spaces, the project meets the parking requirement. Presently the site accommodates for 100 automobile parking 3 0 spaces. This project will not have any adverse affect on transportation or circulation. 14. Public Services New public or governmental services will not be needed as a result of this project. 15. Energy Energy sources are not affected by this project. 16. Utilities Fast food restaurants typically generate more waste water and grease runoff than a full service restaurant. However, compliance with Plumbing and Building Code requirements regarding grease interceptors will insure that potential effects shall be reduced to a level of insignificance. 17. Human Health The project has no adverse affect on human health. 18. Aesthetics By compliance with the provisions contained in the Planned Community Text and the City's Zoning Code regarding the project's design, signs, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site the effects shall be reduced to insignificant level. 19. Recreation Recreational opportunities will not be affected by the project. 20. Cultural Resources The parcel is developed and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of foregoing analysis, including the mitigation measure listed,the proposed project does not have the potential 4 to significantly degrade the quality of the environment 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No Cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 5 MITIGATIPMONITORING AND REPORTA PROGRAM Carrs Junior Restaurant (Koll Center) Use Permit No. 3424(Amended) I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. R\...\aziz-a\cit\MM-COVER ATTACBMENr1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Carl's Junior Restaurant(UP 3424A) Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method o f Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification 1. The project's outdoor lightingsystem Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Planning department plan shall be designed to minimive light building permit checker spillage on the adjacent sites to the extend feasible. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a licensed Electrical Engineer shall prepare electrical plans and submit a written certification to the Building Department that this requirement has been satisfied. F.\...\aziza\Carl'sfr\MM TABLE • 1 s TIE OF PUBLIC HEARIN Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Carl Karcher Ent. Inc.for Use Permit No 3424 (Amended) and Traffic Study No 77 (Amended) on property located at 4880 Campus Drive. Request to amend a previou*approved use permit which permits the construction of a drive in and take-out restaurant facility in conjunction with a new retail commercial building on property located in the 'Retail and Service" area of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community The approval also included a request to allow aportion of the required off-street parking spaces to be provided within hheproposed drive through lane of the facility; a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Communi_yt : a traffic study: and the acceptance of an environmental document The current proposal involves a request to amend the previous approvals byAPprovins a revised environmental document which deletes a previous mitigation measure requiring the restriping of a portion of the intersection at Campus Drive and Jamboree Road, NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 9th_ day of Januaa 1992. at the hour of JIM p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Norma Glover, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. _ NOV 18 '91 04:25PM CKE REAL/CONST. (714) 491-4301 P.2 d AM property Development � — 222 South Harbor Boulevard • P.O. Box 4999 Anaheim, CA 92e03 • (714)491.4300 November 18, 1991 Mr. James Hewicker CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: CKE #191-84 4880 Von Karman Newport Beach, CA C.U.P. No. 3424 Dear Mr. Hewicker: Please let this letter serve as official notice of our intent to file for Amendment of Conditional Use Permit No. 3424. 1 believe the existing traffic study, based on book values, overstates the impact of the project at the Campus and Jamboree intersection. I have contracted with the Traffic Engineer of Record, Mohle Grover & Associates and with the new data to be provided, we believe that the mitigation will not be required. I will Immediately file all necessary paperwork, Sincerely, CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC. / >` �� ) Lorenzo Reyes Regional Site Development Manager LR:ks NewBchlt cc: D. Glenn B. Davis G. Hubbard K. McLeod maq Mohle,Grover&Associates December 19, 1991 Mr. Aziz Aslami Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 17678 Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 RE: Carl's Jr. Project, Newport Beach -Revised Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Aslami: Subsequent to our conversation on December 17, 1991, please find enclosed one copy of the revised study as requested by you. If you have any questions or need amplification on any part of the report, please give me a call. Respectfully submitted, MOHLE, GROVER & ASSOCIATES Alavoz*x4--a �7 Dr. N. Murthy Transportation Planner/Project Manager NM/hms fin: aslami2.ltr MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 901 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite A, La Habra, CA 90631 (714)738-3471 FAX (714)738-7802 aORr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U ? P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 e.< PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 December 18, 1991 Patricia Shoemaker, Principal Planner City of Irvine Community Development Department PO Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92713 RE: Carl's Jr. Traffic Study Dear Pat, On November 7, 1991 the Newport Beach Planning Commission approved a Use Permit for a Carl's Jr.restaurant and adjacent retail building at the southwest comer of Von Karman and Campus. On the basis of the traffic study prepared for the project, a condition of approval was applied requiring that the intersection of Campus and Jamboree be restriped in order to mitigate additional traffic generated by the project. Since this intersection is partially within the City of Irvine,your review and approval would be required prior to implementing this condition. 'k Subsequently the applicant requested an amendment to the Use Permit in order to remove this condition, and a revised traffic study was conducted. The revised study concluded that trip generation would be lower than originally estimated, and that no mitigation would be necessary. Our City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the revised study and agrees with its conclusions. A new Initial Study was prepared based on the revised traffic analysis and a Negative Declaration was posted on December 18. I spoke to Elizabeth Mogster in your Traffic Department today and advised her of the status of this project. She requested that I send you a copy of the Negative Declaration and revised traffic study, which are enclosed. A Planning Commission hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, January 9, 1992 to consider this request. If you have any concerns regarding this proposal, please contact me as soon as possible. Thanks. Jo . Douglas, AICP En ' nmental Coordinator cc: Rich Edmonston 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach P ® S TEaOF NEWPORT BEAC l 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 JAN 10 1992 JAN 10 1992 Newport Beach,CA 92,659-1768 I %RY L GRANVILLE,County Clerk �"'' DEP07Y GARYL.GRANVILLE,NOTICE OF DETERMINATION eY::�= — To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department Sacramento,CA Roo 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Cleric,County of Orange (Orange County) EnPublic Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at,OPR Santa Ana,CA 92702 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. NameofProject: Koll Center Carl 's Jr Restaurant, Use Permit No.3424 (Amended) State Clearinghouse Number. Lead Agency Contact Person: Telephone No.: Aziz Aslami , Associate Planner 714 l 644-3225 Project Location: 4880 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California ,frojectDescription: Amendment to a previous use permit for a 4,188 sq. ft. drive-through restaurant and 3,822 sq. ft. retail building. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on 1-9-1992 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Da1e) 1. The project❑will ® will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures® were❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations❑was ❑was not adopted for this project. 5. Findings® were❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768;714/644-3225 r' January 10 1992 Principal Planner Signatur John H. Doe) og as Date Title Rcviscd 11.91 r CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis,Impact Finding A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: Karl Karcher Ent. Inc. , P.O.Box 4999 , Anaheim, CA 92805 B. Project Description: Amendment to a previous use permit for a 4,188 sq. ft. drive-through restaurant and .3,822 sq.ft. retail building. C. Project Location: 4880 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, California D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the projeces potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title•14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. E. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. January 10, 1992 G Date Job Douglas, P En ' ental inator City of Newport Beach F:\WP51\PLANNING\JOHN-D\FORMS\DFG-EXEM. 11� maq Mohle,Grover&Associates December 9, 1991 Mr. Aziz Aslami Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 RE: Carl's Jr. Project, Newport Beach -Revised Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Aslami: Subsequent to our conversation on December 7, 1991, please find enclosed two copies of the revised study. The revised study has the trip generation survey conducted during A.M. peak period for Carl's Jr. in the appendices. The survey was conducted in cooperation with the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Richard Edmonston. If you have any questions or need amplification on any part of the report, please give me a call. Respectfully submitted, MOHLE, GROVER&ASSOCIATES �R�-G✓Y+ w.G.¢ 1 Un✓�� Dr. N. Murthy Transportation Planner/Project Manager NM/hms fln: aslami.hr Enclosure: two copies of report t2tCtivt� �, PLANNING DEPARTMENT rITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEC 10 1991 AM PH 71819110111112111213141516 A MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 901 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite A, La Habra, CA 90631 (714)738-3471 FAX (714)738-7802 �EWPpRT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT a. r NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 G[IF00.N' t 1 RECEIVED BY:CM CfJSTOMKR.,tAkl- KARCHER ENTERPRISES MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS s1 ,000.00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEES PLANNING DE PI'zz�DEPOS'IJ, $100.00 TOTAL DUE s1 , 100.00 CASH PAID CHECK PAID CHECK NO TENDERED CHAN13E $.00 $1r100.00 3554?3555 s1 , 100.00 $.00 DATE - 12/06/91 TIME - 11 : 17:49 PO 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH US P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 °q<iFonN�r PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 December 6, 1991 Dr. N. Murthy Mohle, Grover & Associates 901 E. Imperial Hwy. Suite A La Habra, CA 90631 Subject: Revision to the Carl's Junior Traffic Study (TPO # 77) Dear Dr. Murthy: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation regarding your proposal for revising the traffic study of Carl's Junior Restaurant at,the northwest comer of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue in Newport Beach. At your convenience please contact Mr. Edmonston, the City's Traffic Engineer, at (714) 644-3344 for traffic data on the intersections that will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Should you have any other question regarding the proposed project, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By v'�Y ���i►rc�, Aziz M. Aslamf Associate planner F.\...\Aziz A\TRAMCK TrOTMGR 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach SEW Po - ° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U Z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 °gtrFoa��P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 December 2, 1991 Lorenzo Reyes CarPs Jr. Restaurant Site Development Dept. 222 S. Harbor Blvd, Suite 300 Anaheim, CA 92803 Subject: Revising Cares Junior Traffic Study (TPO # 771 Dear Mr. Reyes: Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by Mohle, Grover & Associates regarding Traffic Engineering Services required for traffic phasing analysis for the proposed development at the southwest corner of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue in Newport Beach. The proposal contains an outline of the required work, schedule of time, and estimated fee required for preparation of the task. The requested Traffic Consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. The fees are as follows: Consultant Fees $ 1,000 City Fees (10%) $ 100 Total Request: $ 1,100 Please submit a check in the amount of$1,100 payable to the City of Newport Beach. Your prompt response in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEVtWICKErR, Director By OVIe I�ti ,�Yli•, �' Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ma ■ Mohle,Grover&Associates November 25, 1991 Mr. John Douglass Principal Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 RE: Revising Carl's Junior Traffic Study, Newport Beach Dear Mr. Douglass; Subsequent to our conversation today, we sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present the following proposal to revise the subject project traffic study. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for the revised study is to use the new trip generation rates for the Carl's Junior project and to complete the study per City guidelines. This includes recalculation of intersection volumes, conducting 1% ICU analysis and changing tables and figures as necessary. PROPOSED FEE A lump sum fee of $1,000.00 is proposed to complete the revised study. Please find attached a copy of MGA's rates for your review. The breakdown of the proposed fee is as follows: Revising the traffic study $ 750.00 Technical support 250.00 TOTAL $1,000.00 PROJECT SCHEDULE The revised study can be completed within two weeks from the day of notification to proceed. If there is a deadline, please let me know at the earliest. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Respectfully submitted, MOHLEA,�GROVER &ASSOCIATES <nVc,vv�• — , el.At4N1NG DEPART CH r1TY of Dr. N. Murthy NEdpJPC)RT t3 Transportation Planner jJ OV 2 �991 @idl NM/hms AM ►81cJ110jU►121112►3►4►5t� fln: douglass.ltr MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 901 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite A, La Habra, CA 90631 (714)738-3471 FAX (714)738-7802 maq Mohle,Grover&Associates SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1991 Principal $140.00 Associate $110.00 Vice President/Senior Engineer $100.00 Director of Project Development $100.00 Resident Engineer $90.00 Senior Transportation Engineer $75.00 Construction Inspector $75.00 Senior Designer $70.00 Designer/Systems Analyst/Assistant Engineer $60.00 Transportation Engineer $50.00 Administrative Secretary $45.00 Engineering Technician II $45.00 CADD Operator $40.00 Clerical/Engineering Technician I $40.00 Traffic Enumerator/Engineering Aide $35.00 Expert Witness - Principal $200.00 Vice President $150.00 Subconsultants will be billed at cost plus 12% Mileage Rate: $0.25 per mile Conditions of Usage: The above rates are typically effective for a 12 month period, but MGA maintains the right to change the billing rates at any time for convenience of record keeping. Therefore, all billings will always be at the then current billing rates. This will not affect any agreed upon total or not-to-exceed fees. INVOICES WILL BE SUBMITTED MONTHLY AND SHALL BE DUE AND PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS. A MONTHLY FINANCE CHARGE OF 1.5% SHALL BE CHARGED ON UNPAID BALANCES. MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 901 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite A, La Habra, CA 90631 (714)738-3471 FAX (714)738-7802 TIE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Carl Karcher Ent. Inc.for Use permit No 3424 (Amended) and Traffic Study No. 77 (Amended) on property located at 4880 Campus Drive. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permits the construction of a drive in and take-out restaurant facility in conjunction with a new retail commercial building on proper located in the "Retail and Service" area of the Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The approval also included: a request to allow a portion of the required off-street parking apaces to be provided within the proposed drive through lane of the facility a modification to the sign standards for the Koll Center Newport Planned Community: a traffic study: and the acceptance of an environmental document The current proposal involves a request to amend the previous approvals by approving a revised environmental document which deletes a previous mitigation measure requiring the re striping of a portion of the intersection at Campus Drive and Jamboree Road NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 9th_ day of January 1992. at the hour of 7.30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Norma Glover, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. APPLICANTD: CONSULTANTS: NAME: PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE 0. , 5z 10ak� 4 -�- RECEIPT l ; _ � D���WPORom CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5y� NEWPORT BEA . NO 75661-L2 CALIFORNIA B2663 • 1 B 9/ GATE 1 RECEIVED FROM FOR: ACCOUNT NO. AMOU , c , .-� --- DEPARTMENT -__ BY o�-goy• oo f ��D Dl�- ��EWPoR� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT 4 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 a - , a RECEIVED BY: CM CUSTUMERIrCARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS %"i ,000.00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEES PLANNIN��, D PT'-DEF'LSI ,s �iS1C�. UCs TOTAL DUE $1 , 100.ss0 CASH PAID CHECK PAID CHECK NO TENDERED CHANUE $. 00 $1, 100. 00 3554tJ.SJJC $11 100. 00 $.00 DATE — 12/06/91 TIME — 11a17o49 �gWPpRT DEMAND FOR CITY CFNEWPORT o • PAYM ENT BEACH u�ZoaN�z Demand of: Carl Karcher ,Enterorises Date: August 10, 1992 Attn: Lorenzo Reyes Site Development Dept. Address: 222 S. Harbor Blvd. , Suite 300 P.O. Box 4999 Anaheim, CA 92803 In the amount of $1,000.00 Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount Refund of Balance of Traffic Stud Funds 010 2300 1 000.00 Project: Carl 's Jr. , TS #77 Total $1,000.00 Approv4For Payment: Lm Department Head ' • Audited and Approved: Finance Director ta6W PORT _ • • — e� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . U 2 P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 e. Cq</FOR��P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644.3225 December 6, 1991 Dr. N. Murthy Mohle, Grover & Associates 901 E. Imperial Hwy. Suite A La Habra, CA 90631 Subject: Revision to the Carl's Junior Traffic Study (TPO # 77) Dear Dr. Murthy: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation regarding your proposal for revising the traffic study of Carl's Junior Restaurant at the northwest comer of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue in Newport Beach. At your convenience please contact W. Edmonston, the City's Traffic Engineer, at (714) 644-3344 for traffic data on the intersections that will • be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Should you have any other question regarding the proposed project, pl ease contact me at (714) 644-3225. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director Y Aziz M. Aslami Associate planner F.\...\Aziz-A\TRAMC\TPOWMGR 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY CF � �e`79tpRr DEMAND FOR o� ENT NEwPORT * � @� PAYM BEACH u G'LIP�oaN�' z Demand of: Mohle Grover & Associates Date: October 212 1991 AddreSS• 901 E. Imperial Hwy. ; suite A La Habra CA 90631 In the amount of: $1,110.00 Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount CARL'S JR. TRAFFIC STUDY 02-219-01 1 110.00 For professional services rendered Inv.# 91-282 • Total Approved For Payment: Department Head • Audited and Approved U Finance Director MI MOHLE, GROVER & ASSOCIATES 901 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite La Habra CA 90831 ( (714) 738-3471 FAX 714) 738-780202 A INVOICE Client : CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Invoke No. 91-2828 330 Newport Boulevard kWiee Oats ° 10/3/91 Newport Beach, CA 92658 UVOIC4 �� ' 9/1-9/30/91 ATTN: Petricia Temple ;MGA,Job N0 i 015^019 I Client Ret. _ Project Traffic Study — Proposed Development al the Intersection of Campus Drive & Von Karman" - 1vetffi—e peecriptbn Amount Sr. Transportation Engineer 8 hours @ $75 $ 600.00 Transportation Engineer 1 hour @ $50 50.00 CADD Operator 6 hours @ $40 240.00 Clerical 5k hours @ '$40 220.00 • AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE $1,110.00 Project Summary: Fee Amount $5,500.00 Less Previous Invoice 4.390.00 1,110.00 Less this Invoice 1,110.00 Completed ( { NET 30 DAYS; 1.5% INTEREST PER MONTH MAY BE CHARGED ON BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS -- CITY CF * DEMAND FOR NEWPORT BEACH < oVL PAYMENT Demand Of: Mohle Grover & Assoc. Date: October 11, 1991 Address: z impaxia Hw- Suite A La Habra CA antiat In the amount of: $4,390.00 Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount Traffic Study = Campus Dr. & Von Karman Ave. 02 219 01 $4,390.00 • Total $4.390.00 Approved For Payment: Department Hea Audited and Approved: Finance Director I ' ��Ask Adk MOial y, VERSuite & ASSOCIATES f � 901 E. Imperial Hwy., Suite A, La Habra CA 90831 4 i (714) 738-3471 FAX (714) 73B-7802 INVOICE Client CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Invoice No. 91-233 330 Newport Boulevard kwolce Date = 9/3/91 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Irnoke Period + 8/1-8/31/91 ATTN: Patricia Temple MGA Job No. t 015-019 -- Client Rot Project: Traffic Study - Proposed Development at the Intersection of Campus Drive -& Von Karman Avenue DeWiMlon----- -- - -- Amount Principal 4 hours @ $140 $ 560.00 Sr. Transportation Engineer 32 hours,-@ $75 2,400.00 • CADD Operator 27 hours @ $40 10080.00 Engineering Aide 10 hours @ $35 3�00 AMOUNT OF THIS INVOICE $4,390.00 l �` - 1 4 ` W A - , A � ' K f Project Summary: ` Fee Amount $5,500.00 11ese this Invoice Amount Remaining •• �` ,ski , -��,�c,1zc. � Oa—�/9—o/ NET 30 DAYS; 1.5% INTEREST PER MONTH MAY BE CHARGED ON BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • U Nei ? P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 cgCl POTL PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 August 9, 1991 Lorenzo Reyes Carl's Jr. Restaurant Site Development Dept. 222 S. Harbor Blvd., Suite 300 P.O. Box 4999 Anaheim, CA 92803 Subject: Traffic Engineering Analysis Carl's Jr. Restaurant Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue Dear Mr. Reyes: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Mohle, Grover and Associates, for traffic engineering services required for the preparation of a traffic phasing analysis for the proposed project at the intersection of Campus Drive and Von Karman Avenue. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required, approximate schedule of same, • and estimated budget required for the preparation. t, The fee requested has been reviewed by the City, and the amount requested for the tasks required are considered appropriate and warranted. It is, therefore, requested that your company submit a check to cover the following fees: Consultant Fees $ 5,500 City Fees (10%) 550 Total Request: $ 6,050 Please make the check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Your prompt attention in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BQL4 i it Patricia Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments [\1M\PLT\CARLS-JRTPO 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach