Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS87 FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3509 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-2(D) A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: Findings: 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. 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 measures 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, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. 3. 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 evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 735.5(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. Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures for this project. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-2(D-L Adopt Resolution No. 1336 , recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D). C TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 87 Accept the traffic study making the following findings: 1. A traffic analysis in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. 4 • The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project,or portion of the project,including any approved trip generation measures will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary-modified," or "primary" streets. D. USE PERMIT NO. 3509: Fin in 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land use. 2. That adequate parking exists on-site for the proposed development. 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 the establishment of the health club will not have any significant environmental impacts. 5. That the granting of Use Permit No. 3509 will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will not be materially 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 and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Sign Code. 3. No person shall perform or administer a massage, or advertise to provide massage services at the subject establishment. Should the applicant desire to provide massage services, an amendment to this Use Permit shall be required in addition to other the applicable requirements of Chapter 5.50. 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. on week days and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. during the weekend, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That all employees of the health club shall park on-site in the adjacent parking structure. 6. That Family Fitness Center shall provide parking free of charge for up to two hours for its patrons parking at the parking structure located at 600 Newport Center Drive. 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the 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 this community. 8. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. i, STATE OF CAUFORNIA•THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 4. ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT 27939 DFG7535a(8-91) Lead Agency: l�Y L.. Date: (t ll�b 45 County/State Agency of Fling: Document No.: p Project Title: Project Applicant Name: Phone Number: Project Applicant Address:g t /@'L.IGi Project Applicant(check appropriate_box): Local Public Agency School Distrl Other Special District El State Agency ❑ Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $ O Application Fee Water Diversion(State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00, $ O Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory,Programs $850.00 $ County Administrative-Fee $25.00 $ �r rOO O Project thatis exempt from fees DL_ p� ' TOTAL RECEIVED $ C.iLJiVin Signature and title of person receiving payrnent•T �1 I __ FIRST COPY.PROJECTAPPUCANT SECOND COPY•DFG/FASe THIRD COPY-LEAD AGENCY FOURTH COPKCOUNN/STATEAGENCY OF RUNG r R E DcrrYOF NEWPORT BEACH E ID :}j 261993 330o Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 8 1993 LllcounGARYL. 'Count DETERMINATION O ountyClerk To:nit E From: City of Newport �eacli_ — OFPi�T Office of Planning and Research Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA M59-1768 County Clerk,County of O{ange 46894 (Orange County) a Public 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. Name of Project: Family Fitness Center - GPA 93-2(D)/UP3509/Traffic Study No. 87 State Clearinghouse Number. Lead Agency Contact Person: Telephone No.: Leslie Daigle 714 / 644-3225 Project Location: 600 Newport Center Drive, Newport.Beach A proposal to construct 3,805 sq.ft. to an existing structure. The Project Description: additional square footage requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The addition and existing tenant space of 14,445 s .ft. will result in a 18,250 s .ft. area to be used as an at 71 c c u he use requires a use permit. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on 10-25-93 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (elate) 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 y I0�&(./93 John H. o glas, VCP, Environmental Coordinator Date Rcvlscd 5-92 SLTE 1g93 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND G �w GAR NV IL(Lcauntycletk CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION �OCT 2 8 00Y i993 8Y De Minimis Impact Finding GARYL. RANV LE,County Clerk 4N"�DFPI.)r- A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: Family Fitness Center 2456 N. Glassell , Suite B Orange, CA 92665 B. Project Description: The project is a 3,805 square foot addition to an existing 14,445 square foot tenant space which will be used as a health club. The project is located in a commercial zone. C. Project Location: 600 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the projects 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. Date J ' H. D glas, AICP E onme tal Coordinator City of Newport Beach R\WP51\PIANMNG\JOHN-D\FORMS\DFG-EXEM. iI Ty OF NWORT BEACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS F` October 25, 1993 INDEX ROLL CALL 17. Mayor Turner opened the public hearing GPA 93-2(D)(45) regarding: A General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D) - A request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to allow an additional 4,805 square feet (to =o a=al of 1,284,134 equate feet) to p p t7 located at Block 600 Newport Center Drive. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Document; and B Traffic Study No. 87 - A request to Tfc Stdy 87 ic study so as to allow approve a traff tha conversion of approximately 14,445 square feet of existing general office space and restaurant Thespace proposal aletic soclub purposes. includes the construction of 3,805 square feet of additional floor area, to be used in conjunction with the proposed athletic club; and C. IIsa Permit No. 3509 - A request to U/P 3509 permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot athletic club on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also includes a request to establish the parking requirement for the health club based on a demonstrated formula. Report from the Planning Department. arized the staff reportg Director and noted that the Planning commission approved the request with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent. Kevin McGuire, representing Family Fitness Center, addressed the Council in support of their request, and stated they community ke to Newport become par t ofThe unity in Be yy currently have health clubs in Costa Beach Mesa and Irvine, and many Newport residents commute to those locations. If they were requested to reduce some of the square footage within the building, they would have to eliminate the child- care component and possibly the juice bar. Hearing no others wishing to Council tithe public hearing was address closed. Motion x Motion was made by Council Member Watt to: (a) Adopt Resolution No. 93-73, Res 93-73 approving the Negative Declaration and adopting General Plan amendment 93- 2('D), amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to alter the development and policy on statements for Statistical Area No. L-1 in order to allow an Volume 47 - Page 283 w • CITY OF NMORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES October 25, 1993 INDEX ROLL CALL additional 3,805 square GPA 93-2(D feet of development for a total of 1,284,134 square feet of development for Block 600; and (b) Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Traffic Study No. 87 with the findings and subject to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission; and (c) Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Use Permit No. 3509 with the findings and subject to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission including revised Conditions No. 4, 5 and 6 as described in the attached Planning Commission minutes of September 23, 1993; and with the additional change to Condition No. 4 requested by the applicant so as to expand the hours of operation during week days to 5:00 a.m. - 11 P.M. instead of 5:30 a.m. - 11 p.m. as approved by the Planning Commission. Council Member Hedges stated he will be voting against the motion, not because he opposes fitness centers, but due to the fact that the City Council just denied an applicant the right to add approximately 180 sq. ft. to their home, and in this instance, the applicant is being allowed an additional 3800 sq. ft. Ayes x x x x x x The motion was voted on and carried. Noes x ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR nda Item No. 1. eport from the Public Works Department MacArthur commending approval of Engineering B1 Wdng/ Se ices Agreement - MACARTHUR BOULEVARD PCH-Ford R, WID G, PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TO FORD C-2825 ROAD NTRACT N0. 2825). (38) Council Me ber Sansone stated he did not object to he proposed study, but recommended at the public opinion survey on th subject contain a question which sks those property owners if they would support an assessment district pay for a portion of the cost of c structing the pedestrian/bicycle bridg over MacArthur Boulevard. He indicated ere was no public support for the prop ad bridge and thought it would be prude to know this prior to any prelimina design work. He also submitted a draf of a proposed letter to be sent to Ha bor View and Broadmoor homeowners. Volume 47 - Page 284 • CITY OF NWORT BEAC• COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES .G REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING t� PLACE: Council Chambers l TIME: 7:00 P.M. Fs DATE: October 11, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Present x x x x x x x ROLL CALL Motion x ending of Minutes of Meeting of September 27, Ay, s x x x x x x 1 93. was waived, approved as written, and Abstained x or ered filed. Motion x Rea g in full of all ordinances and All Ayes resoI tions under consideration was waived, and Ci y Clerk was directed to read by titles only. CONSENT AR Motion x The follow g items were approved, except for All Ayes those items emoved: CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 1. Removed om the Consent Calendar. 2. Award Via arina, Newport Hills Drive De Sola West, Kings oad, Harbor Island Drive, Terrace Harbor Islan Road, and De Sola Terrace Strm Dr STORM DRAIN (CONTRACT N0. 2914) to C_2914 Gillespie Cons ction, Inc. , for total bid price of $ 82,319. [Report from (38) Public Works Dep rtment] 3. Award NEWPORT C LIBRARY FURNITURE Npt Cntrl BIDS (CONTRACT NOS. 2778(A-C & E-G) to Library/ various companies r total price of Furniture contracts - $395,317.41. [Report from C-2778 Public Works Departme ] (38) 4. PERSONNEL VACANCIES - Reports from Personnel and Gene\hn Services (66) Departments. 5. CLAIMS - For denial by thty Manager: (36) Stephan Galas allegiity was negligent in maintairoadway, thereby causing personalur es from falling off bicycle duepot ole on Pacific Coast Highway, s of stin Avenue on September 3, 1 Southern California En Com nyalleging Valley Crest Lape (un ercontract by the Cdamag dunderground structure plantintrees 150' east of Nigore (VistaRidge) on August 23, 199Rosalind C. Wells alle rock hitwindshield on September1993 while driving on Morning Canyon Road toward Newport Coast Drive on September 3, 1993; seeking reimbursement of $100 for repair to vehicle. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING: October 25, 1993 - 6. VARIANCE NO. 1194 - Appeal application ariance of Thomas E. Steinfeld for Planning 1194 Commission to review alternate design (91) proposal on property located at 326 Buena Vista Boulevard. Volume 47 - Page 260 i i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES S October 11, 1993 ROLL CRLL INDEX 7. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 93-2(D) - GPA 93-2(D) Request to amend the Land Use Element of (45) the General Plan to allow an additional 3,805 sq. ft. of development to property located in Block 600 Newport Center. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Document; TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 87 - Request to Trfc Stdy approve a traffic study so as to allow 87 the conversion of approximately 14, 445 sq, ft. of existing general office space and restaurant space to athletic club U/P 3509 purposes; AND USE PER2iCT NO. 3509 - Request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot athletic club on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also includes a request to establish the parking requirement for the athletic club based on a demonstrated -formula. [Report from Planning Department] 8\ PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRICT Undrgr Ut/ N0. 12 (on West Coast Highway from Dover Dist 12 Drive Westerly to Marino Drive, and on (89) \MacArthur Boulevard from East Coast Highway northerly to Crown Drive). [Report from Public Works Department] 9. MiERGENGY AMBULANCE TRANSPORTATION Ambulance SERVICES R.F.P. - Authorize City Clerk Srvs Bids to a vertise for bids to contract for (27) emerg ncy transportation services to be opene on November 17, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. emorandum from Fire Chief] 10. PLANNING OMNISSION ACTIONS OF SEPTEMBER Planning 23. 1993 [Report from Planning (68) Department il. REORGANIZATI OF FIRE PREVENTION Fire Dpt. DIVISION - Am \an FY 93/94 Budget to (41) reflect the prchanges to the Fire Department oron, and authorize the City Managen recruitment for the position e Marshall to be filled by Janu1994. [Report from Fire Chief] PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Mayor Turner th public hearing Ambulance to considerion of proposed Trnsp Srvs resolution eing the maximum (27) base, mileage, stan y rates for AMBULANCE TRANSPORTATION S VICE WITHIN THE CITY, ESTABLISHING THE FIRED FRANCHISE FEE FOR EMERGENG AMBULANCE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, AND SCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-81. Report from the Fire Chief. Fire Chief Tim Riley summarize his report and noted that pursuant to the Municipal Code, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing o determine whether previous ambulanc rates should be changed; a new rate schedule has not occurred since October 1985, and since that time, the rates Volume 47 - Page 261 CONZUSSIONERS MINUTES .pf�.op 'Jt�,4'lo f�t�d�d�s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 10, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX function of economics. He suggested that the City conside hat was occurring when the 24/28 Height Limitation Ordi ce was approved in 1972,and the changes that have transpire ubsequent to when the City was occupied by many part tiro residents. He stated that he has a concern about maximum si dwelling units on large single family lots wherein he suggest to recognize a small lot problem by allowing a greater am nt of floor area on the smaller lots because "mansionizat' on a big lot is not as compatible in the neighborhood n more floor area on the small beach-type lots. Commissioner Merrill ted that when a large structure is allowed on a small lot th the lot's value is raised to make it less affordable to m y people. Commissioner Merrill concurred with Mr. Hewick s foregoing comments. Co sioner Pomeroy suggested that staff also consider access to roof deck wherein he made recommendations that would roof requests for third story development. " xxx Discussion Items: DiscussiOl Items General Plan Amendment 93-2 No. 1 Request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General GPA 93_2 Plan as follows: A. Loral Aerospace Property: Request of Ford Motor Land A. Loral Development Corporation to amend the General Plan Aerospace Land Use Element to re-designate the Loral Aerospace Property property (formerly Ford Aeronutronic) from General Industry to Single Family Detached/Attached in order to Initiated allow conversion of the property to a residential planned community not to exceed 500 dwelling units. Consideration of this amendment may include the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element, if necessary. -33- CoMIMSSIONERS • • MINUTES o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 10, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, replied that the property consists of 99 acres. Commissioner Merrill concluded that the project would consist of 5 dwelling units per acre. At the request of the Commission,Mr.Bob Wynn appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Ford Motor Land Development Co. Mr. Wynn explained that 500 dwelling units would be comparable to the Belcourt development, and the applicant is currently favoring detached structures. Ms. Temple explained that the specifics of the project will be forthcoming in greater detail with the formal application associated with the General Plan. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that it is feasible that the proposed development would be constructed with fewer than 500 units when the application comes back to the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has a desire to develop a variety of residential sites and residential types on their property which would reflect what is on the adjoining site. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to initiate General Plan All Ayes Amendment 93-2 (A) Loral Aerospace Property. Commissioner Glover commented that she was pleased that the applicant is considering detached housing inasmuch as it has almost become unique to construct that type of residential development. MOTION CARRIED. B. CalTrans West: Request of the Committee for Acquisition GPA 93-2 of CalTrans West to amend the General Plan Land Use ($) and Recreation and Open Space Elements and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan to re-designate the CalTrans property on the northwesterly comer of West Coast west Highway and Superior Avenue, known as CalTrans West, Not from Multi-Family Residential to Recreational and Initiated Environmental Open Space. -34- ----- COBUMSSIONERS • • MINUTES �dAO Clpf��dL�drt CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 10, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner DiSano requested a clarification of the letter dated June 10, 1993, from the Department of Transportation to the Planning Department. Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that to rezone the property back to Open Space would potentially be a breach of an agreement that the City has with the Department of Transportation. At the very least it would be a breach of good faith in the City's dealing with Cal-Trans and the agreement that they entered into for the realignment of Superior Avenue with the benefits that the City gained in the consideration of that agreement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Ms. Flory explained why it could be detrimental to the City if there would be a breach of an agreement. James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that he was not aware of a proposal by the City to purchase Cal-Trans West, and if there is a Committee to purchase Cal-Trans West, there is nothing to prevent a private individual or a group of individuals from attempting to purchase the property. Chairman Edwards concurred that there is nothing to prevent a private party from attempting to purchase the property directly from Cal-Trans. He stated that he would not support initiation of the Amendment. Commissioner Ridgeway concurred with Chairman Edwards. He commented that the state of the law and the letter has convinced him that the Commission should not address the issue. He urged the Committee to approach Cal-Trans inasmuch as there are other methods to put the issue on the ballot for funding. The Commission would be inclined to designate the property for open space but not at the expense of the City of Newport Beach. He stated that he would not support to initiate the Amendment. Motion * Commissioner Glover made a motion to not initiate General Plan Amendment 93-2 (B) CalTrans West. In response to comments made by Commissioner Glover regarding the request of the Committee for Acquisition of CalTrans West, Mr. Hewicker -35- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES • `BOAC �'otp��dly�+'s I c� �ot �P Po�oo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 10, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX explained that the Council Policy allows an individual or a group of individuals to request the Planning Commission or City Council to initiate a General Plan Amendment, typically if a property owner initiates or makes the request. Commissioner Pomeroy supported the motion. Ms. Louise Greeley appeared before the Planning Commission to state that there is wide-spread interest to acquire the subject property, including several homeowner associations. She stated that it was their desire to negotiate a price for CalTrans West and the City would be in a better position than a group of citizens. Commissioner Gifford stated that changing the zoning to improve the citizens negotiation position is something that the Commission is not prepared to endorse based on previous comments nor is the issue something that the City Attorney feels would be an appropriate action in terms of the City's legal position. The Commission is not expressing an opinion as to whether or not it would be desirable if ultimately it were open space and it was available to the City. She supported the motion. All Ayes Motion was voted on to not initiate General Plan Amendment 93- 2 (B). MOTION CARRIED. s . : C. Recreation and Marine Commercial Designation: Request GPA 93-2C to amend the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Rec & Plan to revise the Recreation and Marine Commercial land Marine use designation to eliminate the requirement for the Comm'1 provision of incentive uses in association with the Designa- construction of general purpose office and General tion Industrial uses. initiated In response to Commissioner Merrill's questions of what was the original thinking regarding marine incentive uses, and were the -36- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES . YOc,yr�'ClOfs�od�vdrs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 10, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX developers given extra footage when the projects were approved, Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, explained that the marine incentive use was initially enacted as a part of the Local Coastal Program, and certified by the Coastal Commission in the early 1980's. The incentive system was an attempt to encourage the maintenance of marine related business and industry in the City,particularly the waterfront areas. The incentive offer was not one of square footage and no additional square footage has ever been granted on the basis of marine related uses. The incentive at that time was the ability to occupy a portion of the building with either general industry, general purpose office, or general retail. Subsequent to that time,when the City amended the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, the City altered the Recreation and Marine Commercial category in a minor way to shift general retail from that category that required incentive to just a permitted use category. So currently the only time in current development, or even in the existing buildings constructed under the old requirement, is required to maintain marine incentive uses would be if they wish to occupy a portion of the building with general office or general industry. Commissioner Merrill and Ms. Temple discussed the purpose for the marine incentive use at the time that it was originally approved, and the request to revise the current land use designation to eliminate the requirement for the provision of incentive uses. Commissioner Gifford stated that she would support the initiation; however, she expressed a concern of what affect an amendment would have on the existing marine-related businesses that were set up by the property owners under favorable terms. Commissioner DiSano commented that the leases the businesses entered into would remain in affect until the leases expired. Commissioner Glover stated that the Mariners Mile Business Association is supporting the General Plan Amendment, and after discussing the issue with staff, the business owners believe that the results will be something better than what currently exists. -37- 60MM SSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 10, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway supported the motion. He stated that the property owners have indicated that there has been a reduction in property values, and he referred to the negative conditions that have existed at Corporate Plaza. Chairman Edwards stated that he was not certain that the initiation of the request would address the problem inasmuch as it is a market problem and he concurred with Commissioner Ridgeway's comments regarding Corporate Plaza. Motion * Motion was voted on to initiate General Plan Amendment 93-2 Ayes * * * (C). MOTION CARRIED. No • ss D. Block 600 - Newport Center: Request of Family Fitness GPA 93-2 Centers and The Irvine Company to amend the General (D) Block Plan Land Use Element to increase the development 600 - allocation in Block 600 of Newport Center by 5,000 square Newport feet (to a total of 1,285,329 square feet) to allow additions Center to 600 Newport Center Drive for athletic club purposes. Initiated INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Motion was made and voted on to initiate General Plan Motion * Amendment 93-2 (D). MOTION CARRIED. All Ayes s s x 0 5 F- Nt wp or t7 Coh t e-� ��yes � fp CvnSl`c�Cs'I -38- A- i`%7LACS5 City Council Meet October 25. 1993 Agenda Item No. /7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Department Q4 SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D) (Public Hearing) A request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to allow an additional 3,805 square feet (to a total of 1,284,134 square feet) to property located at Block 600 Newport Center Drive. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND B. Traffic Study No. 87 (Public Hearing) A request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the conversion of approximately 14,445 square feet of existing general office space and restaurant space for athletic club purposes.The proposal also includes the construction of 3,805 square feet of additional floor area, to be used in conjunction with the proposed athletic club. AND C. Use Permit No. 3509 (Public Hearing) A request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot athletic club on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also includes a request to establish the parking requirement for the health club based on a demonstrated formula. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 22, Tract No. 6015, located at 600 Newport Center Drive, on the northerly side of Newport Center Drive between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF-H APPLICANT: Family Fitness Center, Carlsbad OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach TO: Cit*ouncil - 2. Applications This is a request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot athletic club in existing vacant space in the building located at 600 Newport Center Drive. Of the 18,250 square feet, 3,805 square feet is new construction, 9,650 square feet is the conversion of restaurant space and 4,795 is the conversion of commercial office space. A use permit is requested as an athletic club is a conditional use in the APF-H zoning district. A general plan amendment is required to allow an additional 3,805 square feet of development at Block 600, as the site is currently developed at its general plan allocation of 1,280,329 square feet. Approval of General Plan Amendment 93-2(D) will allow a total of 1,284,134 square feet of development for Block 600. GPA 93-2(D) was initiated in June 1993. This is also a request to accept a traffic study which is required of all commercial projects with an average daily trip generation of more than 130 daily trips. Council Policy 'S-1 provides administrative procedures for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance which is contained in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Council Policy Q-1 outlines procedures for amending the General Plan. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, (a) Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Negative Declaration and adopting General Plan Amendment 93-2(D), amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to alter the development allocation and policy statements for Statistical Area No. Ll in order to allow an additional 3,805 square feet of development for a total of 1,284,134 square feet of development for Block 600; and (b) Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Traffic Study No. 87 with the findings and subject to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission; and (c) Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Use Permit No. 3509 with the findings and subject to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission including revised Conditions No. 4, 5 and 6 as described in the attached, Planning Commission minutes of September 23, 1993, with the additional change to Condition No. 4 requested by the applicant so as to expand the hours of operation during week days to 5:00 a.m. - 11 p.m. instead of'5:30 a.m. - 11,p.m. as.approved by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of September 23, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the applications listed above and recommended approval(6 ayes, i absent)of General Plan Amendment 93- 2(D), Traffic Study No. 87 and Use Permit No. 3509 to the City Council. Copies of the Planning Commission staff report, resolution and an excerpt of the Planning Commission TO: City Council - 3. minutes are attached to this staff report. The attached Planning Commission staff report contains a detailed analysis of the issues raised by staff. As a result of a request by the applicant and concerns of staff discussed at the Commission hearing, the Commission modified Conditions No. 4, 5 and 6 to read as follows; 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of&GO �:3q a.m. to 11 p.m. on week days and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. during the weekend, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That all employees of the health club shall park on-site iri tli atdas eit€ iari� 6. That FamilyFitness Center shall provide parking free of charge oflWCaM P P g g � _. Iit"itizs for its patrons parking in the parking structure located at 600 Newport Center Drive. Request by Applicant After the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project, the applicant submitted a written request (Attachment 4) to change the hours of operation during weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. instead of 5:30 a.m, to 11 p.m. If the City Council desires, Condition No. 4 can be modified to read as follows; 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. on week days and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. during the weekend, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B� Leslie gle Assistant anner Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution No._for General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D) 2. Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1993 3. Planning Commission Staff Report - September 23, 1993 4. Letter from Applicant requesting change in hours of operation 5. Floor plans and site plan RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-2(D) AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN, SO AS TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION FOR STATISTICAL AREA NO.L-1 BY 31805 SQUARE FEET TO 1,284,134 SQUARE FEET. [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-2(D)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS,said element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, and floor area ratio ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.and recommended approval of this amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses within the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on this amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the above referenced amendment to the General Plan, the City has prepared an Initial Study pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for this action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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, 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 facts and findings relied upon in making the determination are contained in the public record. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City Council and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that General Plan Amendment 93-2(D), consisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, is approved as follows; "That the development allocation and policy statements for Statistical Area No. L•1 be amended for property located at Block 600 - Financial Plaza Newport Center in Newport Beach so as to increase the development allocation by 3,805 square feet to 1,284,134 square feet of commercial development." ADOPTED this_ day of . 1993. •' MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK CQMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES Gl0 �4,t�d`Gdrs c��y��olt 'P �o9Hoo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX e completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Pu is Works Department. 4. That ov ead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the near appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of t Municipal Code. 5. That all mechanic gnipment and trash areas shall be screened from public s ets and adjoining properties. That the applicant shall tain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior the issuance of building permits. 7. That all conditions of approval of Resu 'vision No. 932 shall be fulfilled. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless a rcised within 24 months from the date of approval as speci in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Co A. General Plan Amendment No. 3-2 D Public Hearin Item No.7 Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so GPA 93-2D as to allow an additional 3,805 square feet of development on R1336) roperty located in Block 600 of Newport Center; and the Ts87 acceptance of an environmental document. UP3509 NYMTED BY: The City of Newport Beach Approved AND B. Traffic Stud No. 8 Public Hearin Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the conversion of approximately 14,445 square feet of existing general office space -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES dAo �'clof��d�$m � •' cc q��o �t���09�oso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 23, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and restaurant space to athletic club purposes. The proposal also includes the construction of 3,805± square feet of additional floor area, to be used in conjunction with the proposed athletic club. AND C. Use Permit No. 3509 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot athletic club on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also includes a request to establish the parking requirement for the athletic club based on a demonstrated formula. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 22, Tract No. 6015, located at 600 Newport Center Drive, on the northerly side of Newport Center Drive between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF-H APPLICANT. Family Fitness Center, Orange OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr.Robert Dennis, appeared before the'Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit"A",with the following exceptions: Condition No. 4, Use Permit No. 3509, regarding the hours of operation - that the condition be changed from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. weekdays to 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.weekdays; and that Condition No. 6 be modified inasmuch as the condition states that the applicant shall provide parking free of charge for the customers; however, the validated free parking would be limited to two hours in accordance with their lease. In response to questions posed by Chairman Merrill,Mr.Hewicker explained that generally speaking -20- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES c�9��ort �Po9`Poo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \\ September 23, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX hen a fee is required to park in Newport Center, customers have tendency to park their vehicles on the streets or in Fashion Bland and do not use the parking structures. Mr. Dennis stated at the establishment would encourage their patrons not to remain on the premises for more than two hours. n response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Dennis explained the procedure that is followed to validate the customer's ticket. The patron would be required to pay the ifference if the time extends beyond the two hour validation period. n response to a question posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Dennis explained that the subject facility would provide employees free parking in the adjacent parking structure. He further stated that e proposed area that would be enclosed at the first level would e to the drip line of the structure. n response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Dennis explained that the two proposed signs will conform to the Sign Code, and one sign will be located on the front of the uilding and one sign on the side of the parking structure. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public Baring was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment No. 93- (D), (Resolution No. 1336), Traffic Study No. 87, and Use Permit o. 3509 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". kinend the use permit as follows: Condition No. 4 shall be odified to state ..the hours of operation shall be limited between he hours of 5.30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m...; Condition No. 5 shall be odified to state ...employees of the health club shall park on-site 'n the adjacent parking structure; Condition No. 6 shall be modified o state ...The Family Fitness Center shall provide parking free of barge for up to two hours for its patrons... Ayes Absent Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -21- 9 COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES lQC�����0l��Od�dls • ' i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document,making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: Findings: 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and.Council Policy K 3. 2. 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 measures 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, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. 3. 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 evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 735.5(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. Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation,measures for this project. -22- COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-2(Dl: Adopt Resolution No. 1 336. recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D). C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO, 87 Accept the traffic study making the following findings: 1. A traffic analysis in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project, or portion of the project, including any approved trip generation measures will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary-modified," or "primary" streets. D. USE PERMIT NO. 3509: Findin 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land use. 2. That adequate parking exists on-site for the proposed development. 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. That the establishment of the health club will not have any significant environmental impacts. -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �fac�����C�od�9,s� • � � I r �P�o^dW CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \ Y September 23 1 93 ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the granting of Use Permit No. 3509 will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will not be materially 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 and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Sign Code. 3. No person shall perform or administer a massage, or advertise to provide massage services at the subject establishment. Should the applicant desire to provide massage services, an amendment to this Use Permit shall be required in addition to other the applicable requirements of Chapter 5.50. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 5:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. on week days.and 8 a.m, to 11 p.m. during the weekend, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That all employees.of the health club shall park on-site in the adjacent parking structure. 5. That Family Fitness Center shall provide parking free of charge for up to two hours for its patrons parking in the parking structure located at 600 Newport Center Drive. 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to -24- A-2 COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES `pl�Ap r�1�'�lOr�t�`dLDrs c��y��olt�P��+oso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Se tember 23 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the City Council the 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 this community. 8. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Site Plan Review No. 66 Public Hearin item No.8 Re q t to approve a site plan review so as to allow the SPR 66 constru 'on of 12 detached single family dwellings on property TTM 14533 located in he Harbor View Hills Planned Community. . The proposal als includes a modification to the Harbor View Hills Cont'd Planned Com pity District Regulations, so as to allow the to construction of a and wall along the exterior perimeter of the 10/7/93 proposed developme , portions of which exceed 8 feet in height, up to a maximum 10 f t 6 inches. B. Tentative Map of Tract No. 33 Public Hearin Request to subdivide 9.2 acres of Ian ' to 12 numbered lots for single family residential development, 6 ttered lots for private landscape purposes, 1 lettered lot for a pub ark site, i lettered lot for public landscape purposes and 1 lett ed lot for future MacArthur Boulevard right-of-way, in the H or View Hills Planned Community. LOCATION: A portion of Block 92, Irvine's Sub 'vision, located at 2001 Newport Hills Drive est, on the northwesterly side of Newport ' Is Drive West,between Port Wheeler Place an -25- Planning Commission MeetAkLe tuber 23 1993 Agenda Item No. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment 93 2(D) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to allow an additional 3,805 square feet (to a total of 1,284,134 square feet) to property located at Block 600 Newport Center. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. B. Traffic Study.No. 87 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the conversion of approximately 14,445 square feet of existing general office space and restaurant space to athletic club purposes. The proposal also includes the construction of 3,805± square feet of additional floor area, to be used in conjunction with the proposed athletic club. AND B. Use Permit No..3509 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot athletic club on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also includes a request to establish the parking requirement for the athletic club based on a,demonstrated formula. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 22, Tract No. 6015, located at 600 Newport Center Drive, on the northerly side of Newport Center Drive between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF-H APPLICANT: Family Fitness Center, Carlsbad OWNER: The Irvine Company,Newport Beach TO: Planning Commission - 2 Applics ations This is a request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot health club in existing vacant space in the building located at 600 Newport Center Drive. Of the 18,250 square feet,3,805 square feet is new construction, 9,650 square feet is the conversion of restaurant space and 4,795 square feet is the conversion of commercial office space. A use permit is requested as a health club is a conditional use in the APF-H zoning district. A general plan amendment is required to allow an additional 3,805 square feet of development at Newport Center Block 600, as the site is currently developed at its general plan allocation of 1,280,329 square feet. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will allow a total of 1,284,134 square feet of development for Block 600. Council Policy Q-1 outlines procedures for amending the General Plan. Council Policy S-1 provides administrative procedures for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance which is contained in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3, an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project. The Initial Study determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. If the Planning Commission concurs with the analysis and conclusions in the Negative Declaration, CEQA requires that certain findings must be adopted prior to project approval. These findings are contained in Exhibit 'W'. If the Planning Commission determines that the Negative Declaration does not adequately address the requirements of CEQA, or that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, action on this item should be continued and staff directed to revise the Initial Study to reflect the determination of the Commission. Conformance with General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site Administrative,Professional and Financial Commercial. The proposed health club is allowed under this designation. The Land Use Element allocates 1,280,329 square feet of commercial development for the site which is the square footage currently developed at Block 600 Newport Center. In order to allow an additional 3,805 square feet of development, it is necessary to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to allow a total of 1,284,134 square feet of development. Subject Property_and Surrounding Land Use The subject property is located in a commercial district and is surrounded by commercial uses. The proposed tenant space is in an existing structure which contains a single floor of commercial uses and a parking garage above and to the rear. The subject property is adjacent to a high rise office building and surrounded by the Newport Center and Fashion TO: Pla• Commission - 3 • Island developments. The closest residential area is Big Canyon which is situated to the north of the subject property, approximately 1,000 feet away and across San Joaquin Hills Road. Analysis The proposed addition is to the tenant space previously occupied by the Paradise Cafe and commercial office use in Block 600 Newport Center. The tenant space is currently vacant. The initiation of GPA 93-2(D), which was approved by the City Council on July 26, 1993, requested 5,000 square feet of additional development. After initiation of the GPA, the amount of requested development was revised downward to 3,805 square feet to reflect the final plans for the proposed addition. The 3,805 square foot addition will be to an existing tenant space of 14,445 square feet for a total tenant space of 18,250 square feet. The proposed health club will occupy the entire 18,250 square foot tenant space and will contain fitness equipment,aerobics,free weights,cardiovascular equipment,showers,saunas and a juice bar. Aerobic classes will be offered. Baby sitting for clientele while they utilize the fitness center will be provided. The health club will be operated by Family Fitness Center which currently operates over sixty fitness centers in Southern California. The proposed hours of operation are from 6 a.m. to 1-1:00 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. during the weekend. Twelve employees will staff the health club. There are currently no plans to provide a massage technician. If Family Fitness Center provides massage services in the future, the project is conditioned,so that the applicant will be required to obtain approval of an amendment to the use permit (see Exhibit "A", condition no. 3). There are no changes proposed to the existing setbacks as the proposed addition will fall within the existing drip line of the building. There are no changes proposed to the height of the structure as there is a portion of a parking structure above the tenant space. The attached site plan and floor plan ,illustrate the proposed layout of the facility (see Attachment). Off-Street Parking Requirements The "H" Combining District does not specify a parking standard for a health club. When a parking standard is not provided in the Zoning Code, the procedure for establishing a parking standard is to base the standard on a demonstrated formula. Through the use permit process, the parking standard is determined. According to the parking study provided by the traffic consultant, a similar facility at Los Alamitos generated a demand of 6.2 parking spaces for each one thousan&square feet. The proposed square footage of the Family Fitness Center at 600 Newport Center Drive is TO: Planni•ommission - 4 • 18,250 square feet. Applying the demonstrated parking formula of 6.2 parking spaces for each one thousand square feet would require 113 parking spaces. The City Traffic Engineer concurs with this parking analysis. According to a parking study provided by the traffic consultant, the parking structure at 600 Newport Center Drive contains 1,099 parking spaces. Of these spaces, 730 are required by the office space utilizing a parking pool concept as established by Use Permit No. 1805. Staff believes the parking requirement of 113 spaces recommended by the traffic consultant is adequate for the proposed fitness center, therefore a total of 843 spaces are required for 600 and 610 Newport Center Drive. Based on the existing parking supply, there is sufficient parking for the proposed health club. Also, peak parking demand for the health club will not coincide with peak parking demand for office use. Tenants utilizing the parking garage at 600 Newport Center Drive are currently charged for parking. If Family Fitness Center decides not to validate the parking of its patrons, staff is concerned that patrons may park in nearby parking areas that are free of charge, such as the parking area for Fashion Island. If the Planning Commission believes this is a significant concern, a condition of approval could be attached to the use permit requiring the applicant to provide free parking to patrons (see Exhibit "A", condition no. 6). Traffic Study Newport Beach City Council Policy S-1, Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, requires that all commercial projects with an average daily trip generator of more than 130 daily trips prepare a traffic analysis. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach requires that an analysis using the Intersection Capacity Utilization Method (ICU)be prepared for each leg of an intersection where traffic projected one year after project completion will be increased 11yo or greater by traffic generated from the project during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour peak period. Traffic Study No. 87 was prepared according to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The traffic study shows that the project will generate a total of 730 vehicular trips on a daily basis of which 30 occur during the AM peak period and 65 during the PM peak period. Two intersections were identified as intersections where traffic generated from the project will increase at the intersection 1010 or greater. Analysis using the ICU method conducted on the two intersections showed that traffic generated from the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any"major," "primary-modified," or "primary' streets. According to the study, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the capacity of the City's circulation infrastructure. Specific Findings: Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be TO: Planfg Commission - 5 detrimental to the 'health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Council Policy S-1, Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, states that the Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommendations of the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department, at a duly-noticed public hearing, and make one of several findings. Exhibit'W..',Traffic Study No.87 provides the applicable finding. No specific findings are required,for a general plan amendment. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve this application, appropriate'findings and conditions in conjunction with the applicant's request are set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". However,if the Planning Commission desires to deny this application, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" are provided. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By U? 9�/ Leslie Jvb '' ld Assistant Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A": Findings and Conditions for Approval Exhibit "B": Findings.and Conditions for Denial Location map Negative Declaration Traffic Study No. 87 Resolution No. [GPA 93-2(D)] Site Plan and Floor Plans I TO: Planning Commission - 6 • EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3509 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-2(D) A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: Findings: 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. 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 measures 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, satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. 3. 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 evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 735.5(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. Mitigation Measures: There are no mitigation measures for this project. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 93-2(Dl: Adopt Resolution No.-_, recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D). C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 87 Accept the traffic study making the following findings: 1. A traffic analysis in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the i9 TO: Planfg Commission - 7 • project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project,or portion of the project,including any approved trip generation measures will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major, "primary-modified," or "primary' streets. D. IJSE PERMIT NO. 3509: Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land use. 2. That adequate parking exists on-site for the proposed development. 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 the establishment of the health club will not have any significant environmental impacts. 5. That the granting of Use Permit No. 3509 will not be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will not be materially 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 and improvements in the neighborhood or the,general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plans, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of the Sign Code. 3. No person shall perform or administer a massage, or advertise to provide massage services at the subject establishment. Should the applicant desire to provide massage services, an amendment to this Use Permit shall be required in addition to other the applicable requirements of Chapter 5.50. 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 6 a=,to 11 p.m. on week days and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. during the weekend, unless an amended use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. TO: Planning•Commission - 8 • 5. That all employees of the health club shall park on-site. 6. That Family Fitness Center shall provide parking free of charge for its patrons parking at the parking structure located at 600 Newport Center Drive. 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the 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 this community. 8. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. TO: Pla;&g Commission - 9 • EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL USE PERMIT NO. 3509 Findings: 1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the building applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case,be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as the proposed development could result in a significant increase in the intensity of use of the subject property. . ATTACH Vicinity Map G PA 93 - 2D H J 2 3 i e4 ry f[MTLA "�P�a (�i, III BLOC 00 t i aProposed Site •� FAS 9x N � 1 r LA 3e � b v Advanc�lannfnp June 1,1993 ATTACHMENT ® E DC1••�Y OF NEWPORT 'BEA, F I L E 4 1 U 1993 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 D Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (714)644.3225 10 i3o3 GARYL.GRANVILLE,Countyefork NEGATIVE DECLARATION GARYL,GRANVILLE,CountyC B lerk To: Office of Planning and Research Planning From: CCil of Newport B a h~�`DEP ❑ 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newporrtftulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,,CA.95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange Q Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Publicreviewperiod (;ef1t_w her 1n - October 4, 1943 Name of Project: Family Fitness Center - GPA 93-2(D)/UP 3509/Traffic Study No. 8-1 Project Location: 600, Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach A proposal to construct 3,805 sq.ft. to an existing structure. The Project Description: additional square footage requires an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The addition and existing tenant space of 14,445 sq.ft. will result in a 18,250 sq.ft. area to be used as an athletic club. The use requires a use permit. Flndlog. Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study contauang 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. Date John ouglas, CP En ' 0n entai Coordinator Revised 11191 yr ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I. BACKGROUND 1. Application No: General Plan Amendment No 93-2(D) 2. Project name: Family Fitness Center 3. Project location: 600 Newport Center Drive 4. Applicant: Family Fitness Center II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See attached explanations) Yes Mavbe No 1. Earth. Would the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? — — C. Change in topography or ground surface X relief features? — — d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? — -X— e. Any increase in wind or water erosion X of soils, either on or off the site? — -- — £. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean X or any bay, inlet or lake? — — g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, X mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? — — 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? — — b. The creation of objectionable odors? — — -X- C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? — — — Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 3 • Yes Maybe No 5. Animal Life. Would the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects)? — — X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? — _ X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ — X 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? (during construction only) — X _ 7. Light and Glare. Would the proposal produce new light or glare? — — X S. Land Use. Would the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, or conflict with existing land use regulations or policies? -- 9. Natural Resources. Would the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? — — X 10. Risk of Accident. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident? — -- X b. Possible interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? - _ X 11. Population. Would the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? _ _ X 12. Rousine. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X - Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 5 Yes Maybe No 17. Human Health. Would the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to a potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ X 18. Aesthetics. Would the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ X 19. Recreation. Would the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ X b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ X C. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ X d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ _ X III. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history? 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- X term impacts endure well into the future.) �� Y-f ENVIRONMENTAL LIST CHECKLIST EXPLANATION FAMILY FITNESS CENTER GPA 93'-2(D) Project Description This project is a proposal to construct an additional 3,805 square feet to an existing tenant space of 14,445 square feet located on the first floor of a three story structure located at 600 Newport Center Drive. The proposed addition would result in an 18,250 square foot tenant space. The tenant space is a portion of an existing structure that contains a parking garage. The proposed use is a health club and would contain fitness equipment, lockers, showers, saunas, baby sitting and a juice bar. The proposed hours of operation are from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.weekdays and 8 a.m. to-8 p.m. during the weekend. Twelve employees will staff the health club. Discretionary Approvals Required The discretionary actions that are required to allow the proposed project are a General.Plan amendment, Traffic Phasing Ordinance study and a use permit. These actions require a public hearing. The proposed project is located within Block 600 of Newport Center. The General Plan designation is Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial with an entitlement of 1,280,329 square feet. The purpose of the General Plan amendment is to increase the allowable intensity of the site by allocating an additional 3,805 square feet of development for a total entitlement of 1,284,134 square feet. The General Plan Amendment is subject to the approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed project is located in the Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial "H"'Combined Zoning District (APF-"H"). A health club in the APF-"H"zone is a conditional use that is subject to approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed project. 1. Earth The proposed project would be constructed on a previously developed site. Footings may be required to reinforce the existing slab. Compliance with the City's Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.04.140) will,reduce any potential impacts in the area of soil stability resulting from the earth fill to insignificant levels. The project site is subject to ground shaking due to earthquakes; however, required compliance with the seismic standards contained in Newport Beach Municipal Code o`° Chapter 15.04 will reduce the risk to a level of insignificance. 2. Air Although some dust would be generated during site preparation and construction, City and Air Quality Management District grading policies require site watering, which would minimize fugitive dust emissions. Objectionable odors from diesel exhaust during construction may be created. However, this is a temporary condition and is not considered significant. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (AQMD) Air Quality Handbook, the suggested threshold for significant impacts to air quality for a racquet club is 98,000 square feet. The proposed project is well below these levels, therefore no significant impacts on air quality are anticipated. 3. Water The proposed project will not increase the area of impervious surface as there is an existing slab, therefore no increase in runoff should occur. The property is not located in a flood hazard zone. 4. Plant Life The site is located in a developed area of the City and will not affect any natural vegetation. 5. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the City and no significant impact to wildlife is anticipated. 6. Noise The proposed site is located in a commercial district adjacent to commercial properties and approximately 1,000 feet from residential properties. The primary source of noise associated with the proposed project would be from construction related activities. This is a temporary condition and is therefore not considered significant. The impact will be reduced by limiting the hours of construction as provided for in Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.28) 7. Light and Glare The proposed project will not produce light and glare that would adversely affect adjacent commercial properties and nearby residential properties. 8. Land Use The proposed health club requires an amendment to the City's General Plan Land Use Element, a Traffic Phasing Ordinance study, and a Use Permit, These actions require a public hearing. The General Plan designation for the site is Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial with an entitlement of 1,280,329 square feet. The purpose of the General Plan amendment is to increase the intensity of the site by allocating and additional 3,805 square feet for a total entitlement of 1,284,134 development. The proposed project is located adjacent to commercial uses and is approximately 1,000 feet from the closest residential property. The zoning designation is Administrative, Professional, Financial Commercial "H" Combined Zoning District. A fitness center in the APF-H.zone is a conditional use. Approval of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter k80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is required. 9. Natural Resources No significant use of natural resources is anticipated as a result of this project. 10. Risk of Accident No hazardous materials would be utilized on either site, therefore no adverse effects on human health are anticipated. The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan. IL Population The health club will have a staff of twelve people. A minor increase in population is anticipated if the jobs are not filled by existing residents. This will not create a significant impact on poulation. 12. Housing No additional housing need would result from the project as existing vacancies in the housing stock can absorb the minor increase in employment of any non-residents. ��G 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Newport Beach City Council Policy S-1,Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, requires that all commercial projects with an Average Daily Trip generator of more than 130 daily trips prepare a traffic analysis. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach requires that an analysis using the Intersection Capacity Analysis Method (ICU) be prepared for each leg of an intersection where traffic projected one year after project completion during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour peak traffic period will be increased 1% or greater by traffic generated from the project during any a.m, or p.m. 2.5 hour peak period. Parking: In order to estimate parking demand generated by the health club, the traffic study evaluated a similar facility at Los Alamitos, California. Based on parking surveys conducted at the Los Alamitos facility, parking demand is 6.2 spaces per one thousand square feet. Applying this ratio to the proposed health club which is 18,250 square feet, a demand of 113 parking spaces is generated. The parking spaces will be provided at an adjoining parking structure which has 1,099 parking spaces. The use of the parking garage is shared by an adjacent commercial office building which absorbs 925 spaces. This leaves a surplus of 174 parking spaces of which 113 spaces will be tied to the proposed development. Traffic Intact: Traffic Study No. 87 was prepared according to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The traffic study shows that the project will generate a total of 730 vehicular tripm a daily basis of which 30 occur during the AM peak hour period and 65 during the PM peak hour period. Two intersections were identified as intersections where traffic generated from the project will increase traffic at the intersection one percent or greater. Analysis using the ICU method conducted on the two intersections showed that traffic generated from the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any"major,""primary-modified,'or"primary" streets. According to the study, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the capacity of the City's circulation infrastructure. The proposed health club will not alter any waterborne, rail or air traffic. The proposed health club will not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. 14. Public Services The proposed project will not result in any significant impact on public services. 15. Energy i The proposed project will not result in an increase in the use of energy. 16. Utilities No significant alteration or expansion of existing utility systems is anticipated due to the proposed project. 17. Human Health The proposed project will not result in any significant impact on human health. 18. Aesthetics The proposed site is located in a commercial district and is approximately 1,000 feet from the closest residential properties. Aesthetic concerns include building height, bulk, setbacks, landscaping and architectural design. Other concerns such as noise, light, glare and odors are addressed separately in the Initial Study. Because the proposed project is a minor modification to an existing structure and is approximately 1,000 feet from the closest residential properties, there is no significant impact to aesthetics. 19. Recreation The quality of public recreational activities will not be adversely impacted by the project. The proposed use of the addition is a health club and this will enhance recreational opportunities for residents. 20. Cultural Resources The proposed site was previously developed and no archeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. No cultural resources or historic structures would be affected. _Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of foregoing analysis, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential 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 significant cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. PORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 C141 FO PN%P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINQ Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the applications of Family Fitness Center for General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D), Traffic Study No. 87 and Use Permit No. 3509 on property located at 6 0 Newport Center Drive. General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to increase the development allocation in Block 600 of Newport Center by 3.805 square feet to 1284134 square feet so as to allow an addition to the existing building at 600 Newport Center Drive: and Traffic Study No. 87 Request to,approve a traffic study so as to allow the conversion of approximately 14,445 square feet of existing general office space and restaurant space to athletic club purposes The proposal also includes the construction of 3 805+ square feet of additional floor area to be also used in conjunction with the proposed athletic club: and Use Permit No.3509 Request to permit the establishment of an 18.250 square foot athletic club on property located in the APF-H District The proposal also includes a request to establish the parking requirement for the athletic club based on a demonstrated formula 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 23rd day of September 1993 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 interesleo may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may 6e 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. Anne Gifford, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach • OTTACHMENT Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TRAFFIC & PARKING IMPACT STUDY FAMILY FITNESS CENTER City of Newport Beach, California Prepared For: Mr. John Douglass Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 Submitted By: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 September 7, 1993 2-931647-1 Prepared By: Todd E. Salvagin Transportation Engineer II LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING •PARKING 1580 CORPORATE'DRIVE,SUITE 122, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE: (714) 641.1587 • FAX. (714) 641.0139 PHILIP M LINSCOTT,P.E. JACK,M.GREENSPAN,P.E. WILLIAM A.LAW,P.E. PAUL W.WILKINSON,P.E. September 7, 1993 LEON D.WARD,P.E. DONALD W.BARKER,P.E. Mr. John Douglass, Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92659 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACT STUDY FAMILY FITNESS CENTER City of Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Douglass: Linscott, Law&Greenspan, Engineers is pleased to submit the following Traffic and Parking Impact study for the proposed Family Fitness Center to be located at 600 Newport Center Drive. This study has been prepared following the City's Traffic Impact Criteria, and study preparation guidelines, and' presents our findings regarding traffic impact caused by the project, parking characteristics of a Family Fitness Center, and the results of the Family Fitness Center "sharing parking" with the adjacent 610 Newport Center Drive Building. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, LIN COTTTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS Cr Todd E. Salvag,n Transportation Engineer II Enclosures C:1T[S1REI'OILTS\161TCOV,LET OTHER OFFICES: PASADENA TELEPHONE: (213) 681.2629 • FAX: (818) 792.0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE: (619) 299.3090 • FAX: (619) 299.7041 AN LG2W8 COMPANY I Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE DESCRIPTION NO PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 PARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NO DESCRIPTION NO 1 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1A TWO AND ONE-HALF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . 3 z 1% TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 REQUIRED PARKING CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5 TOTAL PARKING DEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE NO DESCRIPTION NO 1 SITE VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 PROJECT ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE PATTERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 2'h PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 LIST OF CHARTS CHART NO DESCRIPTION 1 EXISTING PARKING DEMAND 2 EXISTING FAMILY FITNESS CENTER PARKING RATE 3 TOTAL PARKING DEMAND.SUMMARY 3'P I • • Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TRAFFIC/PARKING IMPACT STUDY FAMILY FITNESS CENTER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PROJECT DESCRIPTION Family Fitness is proposing to open a new Family Fitness Center (FFC) within the existing 600 Newport Center Drive office building in the City of Newport Beach, California. The project site is located south of San Joaquin Hills Road, west of Santa Rosa Drive and north of Newport Center Drive. Exhibit 1 depicts the approximate project location. As proposed, the facility will provide a total of 18,250 square feet (SF) of physical fitness area which will include an aerobic workout area, weight rooms, locker room facilities, etc. Operating hours for the FFC will be from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM during the week. The FFC will be located on the ground level of the 600 Building and will take the place of approximately 14,445 net SF of general office space (previously the Paradise Cafe) within the building. The additional 3,805 SF of fitness area (as compared to the existing office space area) will be provided by the expansion and renovation of the prior office space to provide for the fitness center. Parking for the 610 Building and the proposed FFC (600 Building) will be provided by the multi-level parking garage adjacent to the 600 and 610 Buildings on Newport Center Drive. This garage has an existing supply of 1,099 parking spaces. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed FFC has been based on San Diego TYa c Generators (SANDAG) rates rather than the lnstitute of Trat portation Engineers (ITE). 5th Edition, Trip Manual. In concurrence with City Staff, the SANDAG rates were selected because it anticipates a greater peak hour traffic volume generation for the FFC than ITE rates, and because the ITE rates were based on a single study at a facility which was 43,000 SF, which is not consistent with the proposed 18,250 SF FFC. Table 1 depicts the estimated vehicular trips for the FFC. 1 �y t ti�i�7(i-�1" Y7i �•• _ ,t.- ) IFrti;. � - .Al ��.��: �' i ••• i• �/fy Fit}� hf. , �, �� Ke 73 M ME 73� ''�w►`aUP r►''. �{y�. err: wt.,.:���ZI� Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE 1 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach PEAK IIOUR GENERATION FORECAST AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK IIOUR Daily TWO- Inbou FIFamily Use nd Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Way Fitness Center 18 12 30 40 25 65 730 18,250 SF' ' Family Fitness Center traffic generation based on SANDAG trip rates. As shown by this table, the FFC is expected to generate a total of 730 vehicular trips on a daily basis (365 inbound, 365 outbound), of which 30 occur during the AM peak hour (18 inbound, 12 outbound), and 65 occur during the PM peak hour (40 inbound, 25 outbound). The above peak hour volumes have been upwardly adjusted by a City approved factor of two to anticipate the projects 2'/2 hour peak traffic generation. Table IA depicts the anticipated 2'/2 peak hour traffic which will be used for analysis within this report. TABLE IA 2 1/2 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach TWO AND ONE-HALF PEAK HOUR GENERATION FORECAST AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Daily Two Use Inbound Outbound Total Inbound out Total Wa Family Fitness Center 36 24 60 80 50 130 730 ' 18,250 SF ' Daily traffic generation will not change. 3 ,411 Onscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers* It should be noted that these site-generated numbers do not take into account the potential of employees within the 610 Building and the other surrounding office buildings utilizing the FFC. It is anticipated that these people would already be within the project site and, therefore, would not add additional impacts to the roadway system. However, for purposes of this report, the generation volumes presented in Table 1A have been used, thereby making this analysis conservative. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION An arrival/departure pattern which illustrates the roadways that the site generated vehicles would utilize to enter/exit the site is depicted by Exhibit 2. This pattern is based on existing peak hour traffic flow volumes within the study area and input from City Staff. It should be noted that this arrival/departure pattern acknowledges the fact that vehicles departing the FFC are prohibited from performing a left-hand turn onto northbound Santa Rosa Drive. Exhibit 3 depicts the result of applying the peak 2'/2 hour site-generated traffic to the study area intersections based on the arrival/departure pattern. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS City Methodology Traffic impact analysis for the project has been completed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach's required 1% Traffic Volumes Analysis format. In accordance with this format, the existing peak 2'/2.hour approach volumes of each of the study area intersections are added to the following: A. A 2'/2 peak hour regional.growth volume (provided by the City); and B. Peak 2'/2 hour traffic volumes generated by approved projects (provided by the City). The-sum of the background 2'/2 peak hour traffic volumes is then multiplied by.01 (1%) and is then compared to the 2'/2 peak hour traffic generated by the project for each intersection's approach. If the project site traffic is greater than or equal to 1% of the background traffic for any approach, additional intersection analysis must be completed for the impacted intersection using the Intersection Capacity Utilization Method (ICU). If the project site is less than 1% of the background traffic, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on that intersection. 4 N S91 V Sy 'o J o* v01 a �' Ny�•�' OGti m h m ?S 73 SITE* V m SLA ION SR St pR I yl 1>77 �N23X o� � 1SN3 tL M,OUO- pR. 17x�, A gg c A zA7 s, h �q9 r kn o y M 1 ,Nh 7) t e CIO # s� t s� Q KEY 2 �XXY = INBOUND PERCENTAGE NORTH -4= � OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE 'L PROJECT ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE 'PATTERN y(-?, 1 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers FAMILY FITNESS CENTER, NEWPORT BEACH J 5 Ask m Srs1 s(�?J 2 ► J 6`1 0 � � ✓01 L 1► �y < ti 0 Lry � m s rk 73 oQ� a ISLANDN RGSn OR bl 'Sd`MO. 1 �� 2 „�1 B 12 1Stl3 ZL OR � �. e N !o � s�if► o � N �J s� ap 3 NORTH 2 1/2 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers FAMILY FITNESS CENTER, NEWPORT BEACH • • Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Analyzed Intersections Based on the location of the proposed FFC, the following intersections have been selected by City Staff to be analyzed for this project: San Joaquin Hills Road @ Jamboree Road @ MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard @ Pacific Coast Highway @ San Miguel Drive Jamboree Road @ Santa Barbara Drive @ Pacific Coast Highway Traffic Data Provided by the City of Newport Beach Existing peak 2'/2 hour traffic volumes, regional growth rates, and traffic to be generated by approved cumulative developments have been provided by City Staff for each of the above intersections on an intersection approach base. This data has been used to estimate the peak 2'/2 hour background traffic volumes. One-Percent (1%) Traffic Volume Test Table 2 depicts the 1% background approach volumes, the 2'/2 project traffic generated volumes, and results of the 1% Traffic Volume test, for each of the studied intersections. Detailed analysis sheets, using the City's methodology, are attached at the end of this report. As shown by this table, comparing the 2'/2 peak hour project traffic to the 1% background volumes for each intersection approach volume indicate that all intersection approach volumes, with exception of the intersection of San Joaquin Road/MacArthur Boulevard, are impacted by less than 1% of the background volume. At the intersection of MacArthur/San Joaquin, the 2'/2 peak hour project volume equals the 1% background traffic volume. During the AM peak hour, the eastbound approach of San Joaquin has a project volume of 6 vehicles equal to the background traffic. During the PM, the westbound approach of San Joaquin has a project volume of 12 vehicles, also equal to the 1% background. Since both of these project generated volumes are relatively minor volumes, and are not greater than the 1% background volumes, it is anticipated that the FFC will not have a significant impact on the operation of this intersection. To confirm that this location does not have a significant impact, ICU analysis has been completed. 7 ,L '1 TABLE 2 1010 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach AM PEAK PM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection Approach I%n Background/2'k Project 1%Background/2'/z Project Significant Impact San Joaquin Hills Road @ Jamboree Road NB 53/ 0 50-/ 0 No/No SB 54 / 8 71 /20 No/No EB 8/ 0 4/ 0 No/No WB 9/ 6 17/ 12 No/No H a 0 @ MacArthur NB 37/ 0 32/ 0 No/No _ Boulevard SB 501 2 59/ 6 No/No EB 6/ 6 • 21 /12 •• WB 18/ 6 12/ 12 ' •• Q° m Jamboree Road m @ Santa Barbara NB 501 6 37/ 12 No/No N Drive SB 401 0 61 / 0 No/No EB 2/ 0 1/ 0 No/No WB 7/ 2 26/ 4 No/No m m NB 16/ 2 12/ 4 No/No CD @ Pacific Coast SB- 28/ 2 511 4 No/No m Highway EB 65110 60/22 No/No , WB 31/ 6 48/ 12 No/No Vo MacArthur Boulevard @ Pacific Coast NB 0/ 0 01 0 No/No Highway SB 161 4 31 / 8 No/No EB 27/ 0 46/ 2 No/No WB 57/ 8 42/16 No/No NB 38/ 6 25/ 12 No/No @ San Miguel Drive SB 33/ 0 371 0 No/No EB 6/ 4 24/ 8 No/No y WB 8/ 0 8/ 0 No/No �u " Peak hour project traffic volume equals, but is not greater than 1%background traffic. •• ICU analysis have been completed to determine if project has a significant impact. o nMVU:PonM1s47ML Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Capacity Analysis (ICU methoM Based on the City's impact criteria, ICU analysis were completed for the intersection of MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills whose 2%2 peak hour project traffic volume equals the 1% background traffic volume. Table 3 presents the results of the service level analysis at the subject intersection. TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach Peak Existing Background Background ICU Intersection Hour Condition w/o Project with Project Difference (1) (2) (3) (3)-(2) MacArthur @ AM 0.73/C 0.89/D 0.89/D 0.00 San Joaquin Hills PM -t 0.67/B 0.851D 0.85/D 0.00 As presented in column one, the MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills intersection currently operates at LOS C and B during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The second column, identifies a LOS D during both peak periods with the projected background traffic volumes. Anticipated service levels with the addition of project traffic are presented in column three. Project traffic is not expected to have any impact on operating conditions as is depicted in the last column of the table. PARKING Parking surveys were conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM through 7:00 PM at the existing parking garage adjacent to 600 and 610 Newport Center Drive on Tuesday, August 3, 1993, and the existing Family Fitness Center on Katella Avenue in Los Alamitos, California on Monday, August 9, 1993. Summarized counts sheets are attached at the end of this report. Based on the results of these surveys, Chart 1 (located at the end of this report) has been prepared which illustrates the actual parking demand characteristics of the parking structure, and the Los Alamitos Family Fitness. As this chart indicates, the parking structure has a peak parking demand at 10:00 AM when 476 vehicles were parked. Parking at the FFC in Los Alamitos peaked at 5:30 PM when 111 vehicles were parked. 9 Oscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers • Chart 2 illustrates the result of dividing the actual square footage of the Los Alamitos FFC (18,000 SF)by the surveyed parking demand, resulting in the existing parking demand ratios. As illustrated by the Chart, the FFC has a peak parking demand ratio of 6.17 parking spaces per 1,000 SF at 5:30 PM. Table 4 depicts the required number of parking spaces for both the 600 and 610 Buildings based on the existing use (office space) using the city's parking code of 4 spaces/1,000 SF of net area, and parking required based on the proposed 610 Building with the FFC. TABLE 4 REQUIRED PARKING CHARACTERISTICS FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach BUILDING PARKING RATIO PARKING REQUIRED Existing • 600 Building Office 4.0/1,000 SF 58 Spaces (14,445 Net SF) • 610,Building Office 4.0/L000 SF ' 1,094 Spaces (273,533 Net SF) TOTAL EXISTING 11152'Spades Proposed • Family Fitness Center 6.2/1,000 SF ' 113 Spaces 600 Building (18.250 SF) • 610 Office Building 4.0/1,000 SF' 1,094 Spaces (273,533 Net SF) TOTAL PROPOSBD 1,201 Spaces, 1. City of Newport Beach parking code for general office space. I Existing parking demand for Family Fitness Center'based on survey at Los Alamitos, CA. (FFC). As shown by Table 4, as the 600 and 610 Buildings exist today, 1,152 parking spaces are required to support the facility according to City code. The adjacent parking garage provides a total of 1,099 parking spaces. Therefore, according to City code, the parking garage has a deficit of 53 parking spaces. After the FFC is constructed, the 610 Building will continue to have 273,533 SF (net) of office space. The 600 Building will contain the 18,250 SF FFC. Applying the City's code for the office (4 spaces/1,000 SF) and the calculated parking demand for a FFC of 6.2/1,000 10 /p Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers SF, the 600 and 610 Buildings would have a total parking demand of 1,207 spaces which would indicate a deficit of 108 parking spaces within the parking garage. It should be noted that this volume does not take into account potential shared parking between the office space and FFC. Table 5 has been prepared which outlines the existing actual parking demand of the occupied office within the 610 Building (224,300 SF), addition of parking required by the unoccupied portion of the 610 building at City code (197 parking spaces), and the addition of the 18,250 SF FFC at the 600 Building at the calculated parking rate of 6.2 spaces/1,000 SF (demand of 113 parking spaces). As shown, a peak parking demand of 786 spaces is anticipated at 10:00 AM (shown bolded), based on actual parking demand of the existing office and the proposed FFC, and projected demand for the unoccupied office space (City code). In accordance with this projected demand, the parking structure would provide a surplus of parking (313 spaces). Chart 3, located at the end of this report, illustrates a graphic representation of this methodology. SUMMARY • The proposed FFC will provide a total of 18,250 SF of physical fitness area; and will be constructed on the ground level at 600 Newport Center Drive. • The FFC will remove, or take the place of, approximately 14,445 SF of general office area within the 600 Building. • The FFC is expected to generate 730 vehicular trips on a daily basis; 20 during the AM peak hour, and 65 during the PM peak hour. • Analysis completed using the City of Newport Beach's 1% traffic impact criteria, indicates that the project will not have a significant impact on any of the studied intersections. • The parking garage adjacent to the 600 and 610 Buildings has a total parking supply of 1,099 spaces. • Parking demand survey conducted at the Los Alamitos FFC indicates that a FFC has a peak parking demand of 6.2 spaces/1,000 SF at 5:30 PM. The proposed FFC will have a demand of 113 parking spaces based on this actual demand. • Peak Parking demand within the parking garage occurred at 10:00 AM,when 476 vehicles were parked. At 5:30 PM, 202 vehicles were parked (which is the anticipated peak for the FFC). 11 TABLE S TOTAL PARKING DEMAND FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach Parking at-City Existing Parking Code for Anticipated Demand 610 Bldg. Unoccupied Portion Parking for 600 Parking Supply 224,300 SF of 610 Bldg. FFC 18,250 SF Estimated Total at adjacent Surplus Parking Time Occupied 49,233 SF (6.2/1,000-SF) Parking Demand Garage (Deficit Parking) w 0 0 7.00 AM 79 197 113 389 1,099 710 X. 7:30 AM 131 197 113 441 11099 658 r- w 8.00 AM 163 197 113 473 1,099 626 f 830 AM 258 197 113 568 1,099 513 !� 9.00 AM 325 197 113 635 1,099 464 N 9:30 AM 384 197 113 694 1,099 405 m 10:00 AM 476 197 113 786 1,099 313 10-30 AM 466 197 113 776 11099 323 0 11:00 AM 456 197 113 766 1,099 333 a' 3 11.30 AM 469 197 113 729 11099 320 m 1200 Noon 448 197 113 758 1,099 341 M.30 PM 439 197 113 749 1,099 350 1.00 PM 424 197 113 734 1,099 365 A 1:30 PM 432 197 113 742 1,099 357 'w 200 PM 440 197 113 750 1,099 349 . 2:30 PM 443 197 113 753 1,099 346 3:00 PM 441 197 113 751 1,099 348 3.30 PM 433 197 113 743 1,099 356 4:00 PM 407 197 113 711 1,099 382 4:30 PM 386 197 113 696 1,099 403 5:00 FM 339 197 113 649 1,099 450 5:30 PM 202 197 113 512 1,099 587 61.00-PM 144 197 113 454 1,099 645 6:30-PM 94 197 113 404 1,099 695 7.00 PM 72 197 113 382 1,099 11717 pppp�\\hh C7FS MR7=6t7ML4 Vl Lin•tt, Law & Greenspan, Engineers • • The unoccupied portion of the 600 Building (49,233 SF) will require 197 parking spaces per City code (4 spaces/1,000 SF). • The removal of 14,445 SF of office space in the 600 Building will result in a decrease in office parking demand of 58 spaces. The addition of the FFC will result in an increased demand of 113 spaces. • On an overall basis, the peak parking demand will occur at 10:00 AM when a demand of 786 parking spaces has been estimated. This will result in a surplus of 313 parking spaces within the parking structure adjacent to the 600 and 610 Newport Center Drive Buildings. CATFSIREPOR7S11WAFT 13413 / J� Oinscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ATPACEIMNTS i i i t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1993 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 231'Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2928 `(A) 35 3 Was 37 I 0 Southbound 3785 (�—�'a y5 7 4Z- 9 q 81 o i Z Eastbound 516 �b�J 0 Westbound 1647 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. _taM, ��� F}ncSS CPa17e(' DATE 8�II93 PROJECT: MA5070AH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: HACARTHUR BOULEVARD R SAN JOAOUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOHMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IHovementl Lanes 'I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume [w/o Projeetl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1------------------------•---------•---•-•---------•---•-••---_-_.-------------••---••••-_-•I I NL 1 1600 1 1 75 1 0.05 *q 10 1' 0.0.j�`.1_.6...1°_°:5.� --.---------•------------------•-•-------- I NT 1 4800 1 1 1232 1 0.26 '1 J.gs.....!..10-3 10 1 6-33 I .............. I MR I 1600 1 1 9 1 0.01 1 j 1 0 I D. ��.._.!._�...I.O.Uj I .............•.._-_•---•---_------_----._-._....1...................... . I St 1 3200 I 1 21l 1 0.07 I �5 I L I O.D@...) f) 10.08 I----------------------------------------------------------------._- I ST i 3200 1 1 958 1 0.30 * I „!295 ....�.0.+13 1 0 I D.Q I I...:............. ........................... --------_..._...........1 I SR I N.S. 1 1 6121 I43 I,�q i I..L...! I I----_..--•.-..-.--._-•---------------------••..-._.-------._....____.._..... _____-- 1 EL 1 3200 f 1 81 1 0.03 * O 1 zo 1 0.03* 1 f 1 D.03 1 ---- ----------------•--•_--•---•-•-----••------.__--•--- Ei I I 1 115 �1 �f 1-••-----) 4800 ._....----•--_....) 0.03 ............!_-----' 0.0 H 1-.h.._ O.oq i ER I I 1 40 1 10 I I 1 0 1 I I -•--------•••..............---•••--••-••-••---.......----._.-----------....._....._.._ .I 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 10 10 1 0.01 1 0 10.01 1 I---•--•-.-----..--•-•--------••---------------------•-------.--------.•-..-----••.-.-•-----i I WT 1 32001 1 2201 0.0710 137. 1 0. 06 1 3 10.081 ........................................... ............................................. I WR 1 1600 ** 1 552 1 0.35 * I ,;Z3r 10.3$ "l 0 ID.38 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTING 1 0.73 1 1 -------------------------------------------•----------_------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I'.C.U. I p•f3CI-_-•I I-------------------------------------------........................__.. .._..........--I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.6q 1 .._._......................................................................................... •'Right turns only from single lane Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic C.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt be less than I.C.U. without project __....................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 KA5070AM 1/ �L 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 993 PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 231 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2;1 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2558 �°�� 30 z 3ZH7 �2 0 Southbound 4623 ea 70g s 8(o I (O Eastbound 1825 'fj (> 25S �080 u2 i �� Westbound 1121 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected LPIL 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. Finly Flh o 0-,J✓f DATE: 8 i� qj PROJECT: MA5070PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: HACARTHUR BOULEVARD 6 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1993 PM ............................................................................................. I (EXISTING(PROPOSED IEXISTINGIEXI STING IREGIONAL ICOMMI TTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI 1Movementl Lanes I Lones I PK OR I V/C GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio JVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio : Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I _. "---•-- *•..... 1 __. ..1. Vol,3__.. 1 I-•---•••----•-••- "__--••- - _. 1-x I1 I I I I I NL i ---- I 1 41 I ---- S I z, I o.o I o . D.o.. NT I 4800 1 1 1045 1 0.22 1 ............ ................... NR 1 1600 I 1 11 I 0.01 I I ••-----------••••--•-•---------•••----- , L.... � I_ _ �.00 St. 1 3200 I l 439 1 0.14 1fi ....I.....................................� IO.I fO 1 p I O.l` I---•-----•-------•-•••-•••----•--------'-......_ I ST I 3200 I I 1291 I 0.40 *�s I �95..._I. 0.5� I p 1 D-5fl* I--------•-- '•------------ ..............."____._...i SR I H.S. 1 1 348 1 1 %L 1 30 1 - 13 1 1 1----------------------------••••--------------- ............................................ EL 1 3200 1 1 504 1 0.16 * 0 1 /00 1 D.j9'* I 16, Li I I-----------------------------•------•-----•--•-••........ ................................. I ET ) 4800 I L.__29-) 0.07 I•......I ZC......I. 0. 0 a I^ .I.0.0$ I ER 1 1 58 1 p 13 1 I------------•••----••-------------------------------------•••••----•-----•-••----------.... I WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 1 D 1 0 1 O.0i 1 0 10,cf ----------------------------------------------- ...........--•-----_.... ------- I i- 1---) 4800 ------------------) 0.08 !_a..................0o9 .I........ 0.0q,' i WR 1 p 262 l a 1 8 1 l 0 1 I I---------------------------------------------•-•••-•.. ............ -------- •••-•--"--"" I (EXISTING 1 0.67 I I I---------------------------------•-••....................................... i (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I D 1 I------------------------------------------------------- _-••••--------•••-•----•---- I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1,Q.Bs? ..--'........................................................................................ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt 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 MA5070PH l8 �' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 93 ) AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume II Volume Northbound _0_ (ol) o p 0 a 1 0 Southbound 1226 !0'1•✓ 147 2&0 /(03 Eastbound 2437 2'�•J a17 /5 Westbound 4788 2'�• ) Z J�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. �wm� IV F�r,45.5 Cen}er DATE: q!! I u> PROJECT: t°j CH533SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY d MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AN ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI INovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCopacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projeetl I Ratio I 4 I I I I I I I Volume I I I I-.------•------------------------------------------------------„-------•_.----.--••------•I I NL I I I I I I I I I I l..'...........................................................•••••...--•••.................I I NT I i I I I I 1 d I I, I•------•------•-•-----•---•------------------•--------••---------------•-----------••----..I I NR I L I I' I I I I I I I I---•---•-----•-------•-••--------••--•---------------•----------.---..--,--------•--,--••--I I SL 1 3200 I 1 298 1 0.09 • I I I I i I-•-------------------•...------....,..•-•••----•--------.._---------_.._^.------------.-•- I ST I I I I I I I I I 1 I-•----••----------•---••-••••-•••-----.----•-•---_------•---,•-•-••-_-_--.---•--•--•---,--- I SR I N.S. 1 1, 231 I I 1 1 I I I ----------------------•--•---„--„-•---•----•-.---,-----------•----- I EL 1 3200 1 436 I 0.14 * I I I I I i.........................................................................••-•----..........i I ET 1 48001 1 675I 0.141 1 1 1 I i I--••---•-•-------•---••••---••_.....,....•----•----•-•---••-----••---•_-•-•-•-•--••-•-•----i I ER 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I --•---•--------•--------•-i••-•-••----------i..,,....i.....................................1 WL I I I. I •--,..--..-•--•-----------------•-•----- _,-------..-..--------------1 I WT 1 4800 1 1 1297 1 0.27 * I I I I 1 i-----------------------------------------------------------------------•-------,----•------I I uR i H.S. I I --- I I I I I --•-•--•----•------- I (EXISTING 10.50I 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I----------------------------------------------•••---.---••--•---•---•--•-------•-,----•----I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ...............•------........................--...................._......................,. I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems improvement wilt be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Witt be less than I.C.U. without project ...................•--------............,................-•••••••-•.._.......-••---...... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It CH5335AM 20 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Verage Inter pring 993 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2N Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume !� Volume Northbound _0_ Loy/, c) D 0 (' ; Southbound 2342 Eastbound 4111 21 3 to Westbound 3634 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 23-z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Camay r,+rxe5.5 &viTtr DATE: V/IIh PROJECT: �` CH5335PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY L MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED(EXISTING IEXISTING[REGIONAL ICOMNITTED I PROJECTED (PROJECT I PROJECT IMoveaaentl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR i V/C I GROWTH i PROJECT i V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I ICapacitylcapacityl Volume i Ratio I Volume I Volume 'Iw/o PrOjectl I Ratio I J I I I I I I I Volume I I I J-•-----------•--------••---•---••--------------••---- --------------- ____-.--I I NL I I I I I I I I _----••-------•••-----•-•--•-----------------•---•..•__-•---•__---- _.--I NT I I I I I I I I I _______________••-•---•--_-_.------• •--_-� NR ____________________________•-_-_-_-_____-_--____-__--_ -•-••--•-••••-•••-•-••-•••••••I J SL I 3200 I I 827 I 0.26 * I I i I J__________________••-•--•--_____________--••---••-•-•- -__________-_-_____-___•______------ J ST I I I I I I i I I ____________________________________________ J SR I N.S.I I 222I 1 I I I 1 ____________________________•_____- -_---•------ EL I 3200 I I 307 1 0.10 * I I I I I--•--------•-•---••--••-•--•••--••-•-•--•••-•---•------•••••----•-•--•-•----•-•••-•--•-----I ET I 4800 I I 1490 I 0.31 I 1 I 1 1 --____-----•I J ER I I I I I I I I i I I•--••--••••-----•-•-•--••••••--••--•••••••---•••-•---••••••••-•-•-••••••--••-•••___-•••--•-i I WL I I I I I I I I I i ________----•••_________________ I WT I 4800 I I 989 I 0.21 * I I I I. _____________________________________________________) I WR I N.s. I I 437I I I I I I I J.__.__.__.. ________•_•________-___i__-_-___'________________••--••-•••-•_----•••••-•-•---- (EXISTING 0.57 II____-_- JEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED .IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I___________________________________________________________________________________________ JEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. i ............................................................................................. I_I Project + project traffic I.C.U. is less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt 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_J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................... ............................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It CH5335PH Z2 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 3 ) AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2u Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1494 Southbound 1860 7 (0 Eastbound 5212 (. Westbound 2737 �y5 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected psi 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. Ftnt53 0_e,Jf, DATE: PROJECT: z 3 cN5055AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 3 JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM I .•. - IEXtSTINGIPROPOSEOIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMHITTEDIPROJECTED [PROJECT I PROJECT I IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PX MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOtUTM I V/C I Copacity'Copacityl Volume i Ratio i Volume i Volume iW/o Project) Ratio Volume I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I RL 1 1600I 1 221 0.011 1 1 1 1 1 --- ---------I--------I----554---•---------------I---------I---------__'---------•- I HT --------) 3200 ------------------1 0.20 ..............................................I MR 1 1 92 i 1 1 1 1 1 •-------•••-------••-••---•--I SL I 160D 1 1 89 1 0.06 • I I I I I ---------------- -----------------------I I ST 1 32001 1 2221 0.071 1 1 I 1 1 I------------------•---------------------------_--•-•-•------------•••-------------_-------•I 1 SR I M.S. 1 1 5521 1 1 I, 1 1 1 I...........................................................................................I I EL 1 4800 1 1 1047 1 0.22 • 1' 1 1 f I _________________'___--------•---------- ...i________i......_..._...___---•I-----••I----•-- I- ET---) 6400 .............1442-) 0.23 -----------------------•------ -I 's I ER 1 I 2 -------------••-•••••--•-•--••-_......I I WL I 320D 1 1 56 1 0.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 I........................................................._.................................I 1 Wr 1 6400 1 1 987 1 0.15 R I I I I I I------------------•------------•------------••••-•--------------------------•--------------I 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 921 1 1 1 1 1 1 _-------•-----------I 1EXISTING 1--------------------------------------------------------------.•---_---•••_- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED' IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. -- - 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ............................................................................................. Projected + Project traffic I.C.U. will be less then or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 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 then I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II CH5055AN 2q- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1993 PM Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1076 65 1 / - 'J Southbound 3975 3' • O 6)Z) 7 Eastbound 4761 2� a 0 3 &DDDI �0 ZZ Westbound 7-38 1 Cj V 'Z 4062 z' . Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Q 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. &4&-r DATE: PROJECT: Zrj CH5055PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST-HIGHWAY S JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM ........ .IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIE%ISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI•PROJECTED-IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT 1, V/C Ratio IVoluma I V/C I I ICapacitylCopacityl Volume I Ratio I votuma I Volume Iw/ rectl I Ratio I I I I I I 1 Volume1 _._...._�..._....._.�.._..._....._..� I••-----•----•---•-•-•---•---•----•---•---------------- I NL 1 16001 1 331 0.021 1 1 I 1 I 1 •-- --•-----•--I_--------- -309 -----•--•I-----_--'__*------I--•---•--••-----•---•------1 ........) 3200 ..................) 0.12 ......................................... I MR 1 I 67 I I 1 1 1 i I----••-••----•----•---••--••--•-••----•---------•-----------------------•----------------__ I SL 1 1600 1 1 150 1 0:09 * I I I I I------•------••---••--------••-•---••-•----•---------••••-- I ST 1 3200 1 1 577 1 MIS I I i I 1 I _-__-----••••-----•---I 1 SR I N.S. 1 1 12451 1 1 I 1 1 I -----•----••-----••••-•----I I EL 1 4800 1 1 n7 1 o.is * I I I. I 1-•---------•----------•-•--•---•---•-------•-•-•----•••----•---•--•----•---•---•-----------I I ET 1 1 1243 1 1 1 I 1 I --------) 6400 ------------------) 0.20 ----•------•••-----•-----••------•-------- 1 ER t4 1 1 1 1 1 I I-•-••••---••-•--••----•-•--••--•-••---•-_-------•--------•--••------•----•--_------••------I I WL 1 3200 1 1 149 1 0.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-•--•-----------•-------------------------•----••--• 1 I WT 1 6400 1 1 1551 1 0.24 * I I I I I I-•----•-------•-•--------••----••------•----•-----•-•---------------•-----_--_----•••-•--•-I 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 571 1 1 1 1 1 I ______--__--•••----•_---------•--------- I IE%!STING •"_.-•...................i..•0.60 i----- 1 I-i.................................................................. 1 (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ►---------------------------------------------------------------------I..................... IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ...............•---.............._............_..........-._.__..........._......_..!......._ 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -------------••----...----....----....-----•-----....---...........-•---••---..._._...._. Description of system irtprovement: PROJECT FORM It CH5055PH (0 / 24 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SANTA BARBARA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 9 93 ) AM Peak 211 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 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 3790 3' , Z2 grJO p outtbound 2746 3 ` O 0SEbond _0_ O� 0 westbound 846 (�D �( Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected tom! Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: $ �� PROJECT: 2� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 6 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICDMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTI PROJECT I' IHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C 1, GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I Ca cit Ca cit Volume Ratio I Voluao I Volume Iw/o Project I Ratio I I I YI w Y1 I I I volume __________________________________•-••---•j-•----•--------••--i I NL 'I I I i I I I I I i I--•-•----•-----------------------•-•-•-•-----•-•••------•-•----•-••-•-•----••-•-••-•-•-•---I NT 1 4800 1 1 1516 1 0:32 * I I I I I 1__•____________________________________________________________•--___•_•_____________ _ MR 1 16001 1 2691 0.171 1 1 1 1 1 •___-__•____-___••-----••••----•-•-•---•------I 1 SL 1 3200 1 1 370 1 0.12 * I I I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ST 1 48001 1 8391 0.17 '1 1 1 1 1 1 --------------. __-__.._........_I i - ••................•••-.... ....•---•---••----•-- ---••••-•-•••--1 SR .___----•-•--••--•------•-••------- 1 EL I I I I I I I I I I I-•-••---•-----•---•-•----•-•-----••-•--•••••-••-------•--•---------•••--•••••--•----• I I ET I I I I I I I I I I I--•------••-•------•-•••-••-•-•-•--•-•-- -•I I ER I I I I I I I I I I I--•-------•----•-----•--•------•-•••---•---•------•---••••--••-••-------•••--••--•-•- I WL 1 2400 1 1 45 1 0.02 * I I I I I I--------•----•-----•--------•-------. . I wr I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WR 1 2400 1 1 131 1 0.05 1 I I I I I 'I........................................................................................... 1EXISTING 1 0.46 '1 1-••-- - REG GROW•- + __•MITT-- ----•-•--• -•-••--•....................... 1 - - HPROVEHENTS I.C.U. 1 ( EXIST +-----GROWTH + ----------W/PROPOSED I------------------------------------------------� 1EXISTIN0 + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. .............................•-...........__........._...._..._.._......_......._._..._...... 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic 'I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement Witt 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: PROJECT FORM It JA5310AM �w Iz 1% Traffic Volume Analysis . Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SANTA BARBARA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage Winter pring 199'3 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h. Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume `Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2737 C36 28 3ra 37 )z Southbound 4426 31 -2 1 Z (OIZI I 0 Eastbound _0_ r0/\ Q so g o ` a Westbound 2013 co D 2-5(oV Z(D 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 O Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. �4 F,4iless derrte I- DATE: 91,V13 PROJECT: 9 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 6 SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1993 PH ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEX1STINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECT I PROJECT I IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I, PROJECT I V/C Ratio JVolume I V/C I l lCopacitylCapacityl Volume l Ratio I Volume l Volume lw/o Projectl l Ratio l Volume _.___--•--------------------••-----------•--I I HL I I I 1 1, 1' 1 1 1 1 I___________________________________________________________________________________________I l NT 1 4800 1 1 932 1 0.19 ,1 1 1 1 1 1 _.______„__________________„_.___,,.__._-___, ........................................... NR 1 1600 1 1 153 1 0.10 1 1 1 1 1 I I-•...............................:.........................................................1 l SL I 32001 1 3331 0.101 1 1 1 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I l ST 1 4800 1 1 1852 1 0.39 * I I I I I ..:....................................................... ...............................I I SR I I I 1 1' 1' 1 1 1 I 1____________________________________________ _-.__. 6 EL I I I I I I I I I i _______________ I ET I I I I I I I 1 6 1 1---------------------------------------•-----••-----•------•--------------------,_,I-,-----I ER _________________________________________________________________ __-____-1 l uL 1 2400 1 1 456 1 0.19 * I I I I I I--------------•----------------•-----•------------- I WT I I I I I I I I I I ______________________________________•-----._.____..____----------_---------__•_-------_-- 1 WR 1 24001 1 4521 0.19 1' 1 11 1 1 I I-----------•------------------•----------•----------------••-------------------------------I EXISTING 58 1-------- .......................................................1 1 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I-------l 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ............................................................................................. 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 l_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project .......................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It JA5310PH 3d 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN MIGUEL DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 21* Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 2971 (p� -3i yJr� 36 If Southbound 2302 q1J S3q 3X55 .3.3 i 0 Eastbound 488 (of) D 8ry(� QGj Westbound 627 — Ol b 17j^j $os 8 0 �j Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected )/mil Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. FAm: r6es,5 Cethr- DATE: ` ,I� PROJECT: 31 FORM I NA7135AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NACARTHUR BOULEVARD i SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTiNGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED [PROJECT I PROJECT I IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio Ivolume I V/C I I 1CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio 1� Volume I Volume 1w/0 Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I I I-----------------------------------------------_----------------________________-----------I I NL 1 .1600 1 1 132 1 0.08 * I I I I I ........................................................................................... HT 1 1 1028 1--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.36 ----------------------------------------------I MR I 1 110 I 1 1 I 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I SL 1 1600 1 1 6 1 0.00 1 1 1 I I I -----------------'-------------------------- -------- --------- ----------- --------------- ST 560 ' I I ' --------) 3200 i---------- -)- 0.35 i.-_._...i..................................... SR 574 I--------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------I EL 1 3200 1 1 159 1 0.05 * 1 I I I I f--------------------------I----_-___-_----_- ----___. _---_---_--_------__. ___--_- _------ ET 65 I I I I I--------) 3200 ----) 0.03 .............................. ------I ER 1 1 22 i' 1 1 1 1 1 1___________________________________________________________________________________________I 1 WL 1 16001 1 971 0.061 1 1 1 1 1 -----------------I--------i------ --------------------------i.._......................-- Wr 184 --------) 3200 ..................) 0.06 i----------------------------------------------I WR 8 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTING 1 0.54 1 1' ___ _ _ _ ____ ____ _ ____ _________________________________ 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I___________________________________________________________________________________________ 1EX1STtNG + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ............................................................................................. is Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less then 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_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 11 RA7135AN �7D 32- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN MIGUEL DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 19 .g2) pM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 21S Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1962 �6� 33 221 2.53(0 Z� Southbound 2743 W 9 y5 (09(0 3 rZi 0 Eastbound 2101 Q 32�0 2 Z Z Westbound 701 —_D Q '7'7-5 ! p 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. Filncss eld44e DATE: Y I)V PROJECT: Yo 33 FORM I KA7135PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD i SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PH ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEkISTiNGIEXISTINGIREGIONACICOwiITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT IPROJECTI 1Hovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Votune I Votune 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I' i ........ -------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I xL 1 1600 1 1 so 1 0.03 * I I I I I -------------------a----------- .. ------..............------..........._................ xr . I I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.24 ------------------------.......-----------.....I 1 MR 1 1 132 1 1 1 1 1 1 I------------------------------------------------------------- --I SL 1 1600 1 1 7 1 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 -----------------i--------i-------------------------- ------------------------------------- ST 1006 i L.......) 3200 ------------------) 0.39 •..............................................I 1 SR 1 1 245 I 1 1 1 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 549 1 0.17 * I I I I I --------------------------i------------------------------------------------i-------i------- ET 291 --------) 3200 I-----------------) 0.13 1--------I---------I-----------I---------------,I ER J34 I---------------------------------------------------------..................................I I WL I 160D I 1 106 1 0.07 1 1 1 1 1 .................i..------i...---....------..........i.------........---..................• WT 120 1--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.04 *----------------------------------------------I 1 WR I 1 18 I 1 1 1 1 1 i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 1 1-------- ----------------------. ---- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I i------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED'+ REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ............................................................................................. 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt be less than I.C.U. without project ..........................................--------................................_...... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It KA7135PH 3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92) Art 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 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 3684 CV-) 332 )30$ 532�1 `cam {0 Southbound 3844 3iJ 3�� ��Q 33 V� `�Q� ' Eastbound 758 LOI Westbound 783 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected JL� 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. -fne55 CeNK2 DATE ��rf43 PROJECT: 35 FORM I JA5045AM • • : INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5D45 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AN ....................•_.•...••........•....•.•.......-_._.._..............._......_...._...... XIST ITTED ECTED I 'HovementlELanesNGIPLanesEDIEPKSHRNG1EXV/CING�REGIONAL ICPROJECT V/8 Ratio Volume RVJCCTI �Capacity�ca eity� Volume I Ratio Volume Volume Iw/o Project I Ratio I Pa Volume .................... _..__...___._---- HL I 1600 I I 33 I 0.02 I I I I I 1 .......................^.._---............_._........._..__.....--••-•-•---...............I HT 4800 1527 0.32 MR 1600 91 0.06 '� .......... .. ...... . ........................................ SL I 3200 1 I 565 I 0.18-_... -------------•--•-- I. .SR...1 4800 ............. 1 ..._........0.01 �__......_..._.. ......... sT 00 1141 141 0.24 I I I I I -._.•.._...••-.-.i.•••.--•i:...••......-•-.•i......--i._..._...I•..•----------------------- EL 269 ET 41 _....._...•---..-.-.---------------- .------ _-------- _------ .............................. ^ : ER M.S. 53 '.................'_._..-.-i......... _...._ ....... ..-_..._. ------._.. ___------.._.._' WL 74 L i L I I -------- 4800 ------------------ 0.02 •.............................................. WT I I I 71, 1 d I 1 VR N.S. 1 I 266 1 1 I I _.•.._.•.....•...•..•............................................................... .I (EXISTING I 0.58 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 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 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/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 then, I.C.U. without project .....••...................................•..-._..-•_-...•.................._....._...... Description of system taprovement: PROJECT FORM 11 JA504SAM 36 '� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92) FM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 3401 13: �8 70 0 Southbound 5055 (,3".\ 6/" / n1O� 2a Eastbound 414 0%J 0 2te 0 Westbound 1558 \ nl D I Ifi �Z Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected P. 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. �Rm Aes LI 1/- DATE: 8 3 e�v �• 5 n 11 9 PROJECT: 3 FORM I JA504SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD R SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM ............................................................................................. IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTING EXISTINGIREGIONAL COMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI HovementlVIC CapaeityLanes lCapacity Lanes � Votuume ' Ratio 'I Volume Volu PK MR VIC GROWTH T me IW/CProject Ratio iYolune Ratio VotUnc --------------------------.--------.--------.--------.------------------------------------ . I_-.HL_ 1 1600 1 ( 89 1 0.06 * ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NY 1i 4800 -_._.-•�. 1198 1 0.25 1 1 1 1 1 .................. .._._._.._._....._..._......__.................._._....._..._.. HR 1600 1 94 1 0.06 1 1 --- ...........•.---..._.........-_-............ ..........._...._.................._•------- � SL 1 3200 1 1 453 1 0.14 ST 1 4800 1 1 1737 0.36 ._ _ ------•-•----_-_._..*1---- SR 1 4600 1 1 151' � 0.09 ...................................•-----_._.._.._______.._........_.____I EL 1 1 84 1 1 1 1 1 4800 ------------------ 0.02 .............................................. ET 28 ER j N.S. 63 ................................................................................. WL 1 1 157 1 1 1 ._......� 4800 ..................) 0.05 ......................I..... ......_._..... WT 60 I-- -R ......N.S.......(.........................................................................( --- .____.._._-_ ' EXISTING 1 0.49 1 = ....REG.....GROWTH....+.........CCHHITTEO...W/.......PROPOSED......IHPROVEHEHTS..........I....C...U.....----------- . ' EXIST + EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ............................................................................................. 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 then 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: PROJECT FORM It JAS04SPH �V ACE TRAFFIC SURVEYS CITY: NEWPORT BEACH, CA LOCATION: 600 NEWPORT BLVD - PARKING GARAGE DATE: 8/3/93 INVOICE NO.: 219 14 -31 PAX ',1 ,IAFi: l:.?.�v� i.\:axoN�•. O.LR.. '....iYi. fi� Y fS44AFS: vFw+�.3Y`•E�.Nti 7:00 AM 5 8 u 25 2711 1 oil 1 0 n 1 7:30AM 15 ° 11 16° 44' 35u 6 1u 1 0u 2 7r— It 8:00 AM 23 :1 10 19 a 51 4311 11 211 2 0 n 2 8:30 AM 42 a 13 4111 65 5811 26 911 3 Oil 1 9:00 AM 43 a 21 55 a 69 68 a 50 11 :1 7 011 1 9:30 AM Sill 22 5811 72 7211 87 1311 9 Oil 0 10:00 AM 6311 34 76 a 73 8211 122 14 a 12 0!! 0 10:30 AM 631 36 74 a 73 73 ti 120 16 n 11 0 u 0 11:00 AM 54:1 34 75 76 a 121 12 a 13 0 u 0 11:30 AM 5811 38 73 ri 72 7511 127 13 ri 13 Oil 0 12:00 NOON 55 a 39 70 Ill 70 74 a 115 1311 12 0 a 0 12:30 PM 57 It 40 681i 71 73 a 104 14 a 12 011 0 it 7F 1:00 PMF7 '111':11 62:1 69 7311 97 14!j 11 011 0 1:30 PM 66 n 68 7211 100 1211 12 off 0 2:00 PM 70�� 67 70!! 104 13!! 9 oil 0 to 2:30 PM 7511 60 7511 102 1211 12 Oil 0 i 3:00 PM 73 1: 62 74�� 102 1311 10 0 u 0 3:30 PM 74° 60 72 p 100 13 ti 11 0 n 0 4:00 PM 5411 58 671 104 14 a 11 0 i 0 I it 4:30 PM 54 11 41 50 i 57 6411 98 12,1: 10 0 n 0 It 11 11 5:00 PM 34 a 39 49 a 55 4511 96 11 It 10 0 it 0 1. is 5:30 PM 30 ri 28 2911 28 2211 50 1011 6 0 n 0 It It1 i 6:00 PM 30 n 20 1511 15 11 !1 42 711 4 0:1 0 6:30PM 24° 12 11 ° 6 7u 25 6u 3 0u 0 It It 7:00 PM 1911 8 911 4 711 19 3 i1 3 oil 0 �7 39 ACE TRAFFIC SURVEYS • CITY: Los Alamitos, CA A LOCATION: Family Fitness-Center Katella Blvd DATE: 8/9193 INVOICE NO.: 219 Augdst 9, 1993 Monday 'Number of Vehides'Parked TIME On=Sile.Parking Otf»Site Parking TOPAL :00 AM 21 1 22 :30 AM 34 4 38 :00 AM 54 6 60 :30 AM 57 6 63 :00 AM 44 7 51 ;30 AM 29 8 37 10:00 AM 36 9 45 10:30 AM 37 9 46 11:00 AM 39 9 48 11:30 AM 25 7 32 12:00 NOON 23 8 31 12:30 PM 33 8 41 1:00 PM 36 9 45 1:30 PM 24 6 30 :00 PM 22 6 28 :30 PM 17 7 24 :00 PM 18 4 22 :30 PM 16 12 28 :00 PM 23 15 38 :30 PM 43 20 63 :00 PM 53 45 98 :30 PM 56 55 111 :00 PM 52 54 106 :30 PM 56 53 109 :00 PM 54 48 102 � t9 CHART 1 EXISTING PARKING DEMAND Los Alamitos Family Fitness Center 500 Peak &6'(f0 Newport tracture —i 450 400 a 350 • V 0 300 d 0,250 0 N 200 Peak E 150 100 50 0 Tii I i I I } I I I I I I I I i i I I i i i i 1 i ::s o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M QO M O N2 O M O M O M O '2 dn O O M O M O "I O r` 00 OO MOl O O ^ N N 00 N N M M V' < � V7 O • •-- Time of Day • Existing Family Fitness 600 Newport Structure CHART 2 Existing Family Fitness Center Parking Rate Los Alamitos, California 7 Monday August 9, 1993 6. • 5. (6.17 spacels 1,000 SF) 04. —A N a 3. 2. I. • • o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M d t7 O n O M O M O M O O t� w co M M O O N 00 N fV M] 1+7 V t[) to lD a0 O Time of Day °off 'I CHART3 TOTAL PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY 1200 1000 ---�--Existing Sttucturc • 0 Proposed Family Fitness 800 'c -- -Unoccupied Office U C> 0 Total Demand N N 600 Existing Supply rn 0 E E z' 400 200 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 M Q M O K') O M O 12 O r'M O r a %q O M O M O M O n O M O O N N M M t VJ to u7 [p O n Time of Day RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORTBEACH GENERALPLAN TO INCREASE THE ENTITLEMENT FOR BLOCK 600 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE BY 3,805 SQUARE FEET. [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-2(D)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, a Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, said Element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways,including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, and the floor area ratio categories; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element and CirculatioriElements of the General Plan are correlated as required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and 1 Ara WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS,the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project; and WHEREAS,the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan is in conformance with the provisions of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA an initial study has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study concluded that the project could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED 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 measures 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 recommended for approval. The facts and findings relied upon in making this determination are contained in the public record. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to recommending that the City Council approve the project. 23 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of.Newport ' Beach that General Plan Amendment,93-2(D),consisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, be recommended to the City Council for approval as follows: "That the development allocation and policy statements for Statistical Area No. L-1 be amended for property located at Block 600 - Financial Plaza Newport Center in Newport Beach so as to increase the development allocation by 3,805 square feet to 1,284,134 square feet of commercial development." ADOPTED this day of 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY Harry Merrill Chairman BY Anne Gifford Secretary 3 dis� 10/12/93 18:3 1 8 619 431 1974 INTL FITNESS CO 01 F� • . ff C F N T E p s October 13 , 3993 Planning Department City of Newport Beach ATTN: LESLIE SENT VIA FAX: 734-544-3250 RE: FAMILY FITNESS APPLICATION USE PERMIT NO. 3509 Please be advised that Family Fitness Requests that its operating hours be changed from 5:30 a.m. Monday-Friday to 5: 00 a.m. Monday-Friday. In all other respects the times set forth in the Public Hearing on September 23 , 1993 are acceptable. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Robert D. Dennis RDD:cr It 111>11'1!NM I1'.1'!1 PO. 80X 4356 0 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92018 • City Counchoeung October 11, 1993 Agenda Item No. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: a General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as allow an additional 3,805 square feet of development (to a total of 1,284,134 square feet)to property located at Block 600 Newport Center. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND B. Traffic Study No. 87 Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the conversion of approximately 14,445 square feet of existing general office space and restaurant space to athletic club purposes. The proposal also includes the construction of 3,805 square feet of additional floor area,to be used in conjunction with the proposed athletic club. AND C. Use Permit No. 3509 Request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot athletic club on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also includes a request to establish the parking requirement for the athletic club based on a demonstrated formula. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 22, Tract No. 6015, located at 600 Newport Center Drive, on the northerly side of Newport Center Drive between Santa Cruz Drive and Santa Rosa Drive, in Newport Beach. ZONE: APF-H APPLICANT: Family Fitness Center, Carlsbad OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach TO: City— ,uncil - 2. • Applications This is a request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot health club in existing vacant space in the building located at 600 Newport Center Drive. Of the 18,250 square feet, 3,805 square feet is new construction, 9,650 square feet is the conversion of restaurant space and 4,795 square feet is the conversion of commercial office space. A use permit is requested as an athletic club is a conditional use in the APF-H zoning district. A general plan amendment is required to allow an additional 3,805 square feet of development at Newport Beach Block 600, as the site is currently developed at its general plan allocation of 1,280,329 square feet. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will allow a total of 1,284,134 square feet of development for Block 600. This is also a request to accept a traffic study which is required of all commercial projects with an average daily trip generator of more than 130 daily trips. Council Policy S-1 provides administrative procedures for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance which is contained in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Council Policy Q-1 outlines procedures for amending the General Plan. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action If desired, set these items for public hearing on October 25, 1993. Background At its meeting of September 23, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the applications listed above and recommended approval'(6 ayes, 1 absent) of General Plan Amendment 93- 2(D), Traffic Study No. 87 and Use Permit No. 3509 to the City Council. Copies of the Planning Commission staff report, resolution and an excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes will be forwarded to the City Council at the time of the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKE Director i By ; �/ Le ie J. D4q4glV Assistant Planner PG,Yr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 e. C,yCI FO RN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 August 2, 1993 Todd E. Salvagin Transportation Engineer II Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Office Building Traffic Study Dear Mr. Salvagin: Enclosed is the signed proposal authorizing Linscott, Law & Greenspan to proceed with traffic engineering services for the proposed addition to 600 Newport Center Drive in accordance with the signed proposal. Please contact me at (714) 644-3225 if you have any questions concerning this matter. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Les tie J. Daigle Assistant Planner Attachment F�id\Tr02 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Y OF NFWPOR i BEAU LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING •PARKING N 2 F 1993 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 122, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92A I U PM TELEPHONE: (714) 641-1587 • FAX: (714) 641.0139 7►81911011112111213141516 4 PHILIP M. UNSCOTT, P.E. JACK M. GREENSPAN,P E. June 24, 1993 WILUAM A.LAW, P.E. PAUL W.WILKINSON,P.E. LEON D.WARD, P E. DONALD W. BARKER,P E. Mr. John Douglass, Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES Family Fitness Center, 600 Newport Center Drive Dear Mr. Douglass: Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers is pleased to submit the following proposal as it pertains to the proposed Family Fitness Center to be located within the office complex at 600 Newport Center Drive. As we understand it, Family Fitness proposes to occupy vacant space which presently exists in the office building located at 600 Newport Center Drive. In addition, the health club will also expand an additional 5,000 square feet. Based on our discussions with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Traffic Engineering Staff, preparation of a Traffic Impact/Parking Study as defined by the following Scope of Work is required: SCOPE OF WORK TASK I: Existing Traffic Volume Data As defined by the City Traffic Department, the following six intersections will make up the study area: • Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road • Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive • Jamboree Road/Pacific Coast Highway • MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road • MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive • MacArthur Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway It is our understanding that, AM and PM peak hour traffic volume data for each of these intersections is on file and will be provided by the City. OTHER OFFICES: PASADENA TELEPHONE: (213) 681-2629 • FAX: (818) 792.0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE- (619) 299.3090 • FAX, (619) 299.7041 AN LG2WB COMPANY �p,'�/, • �-"'tee C�".� (a D ..f� � �� aK �' �-�- ��� a .� ' s �'�' ��� ��, •Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineerlp Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 24, 1993 Page 2 TASK H: Proiect Traffic Generation & Distribution Traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed health club will be based on available traffic generation data for health clubs. The project-related traffic will be distributed to the street system based on anticipated travel patterns to/from the site. TASK III: Intersection Analysis Using the City's two and one-half hour analysis procedure,the six study intersections will be analyzed to determine whether formal analysis using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method will be required. As stated by the City's guidelines, if project generated traffic during the peak two and one- half hour period is greater than 1% of the total background (e)isting plus regional growth plus approved projects) two and one-half hour volume, than an ICU analysis for the peak hour will be completed for the following conditions: A. Existing traffic volumes; B. "A" plus regional growth; C. "B" plus approved projects; * and D. "C" plus project traffic. * It is our understanding that, the City will provide information on regional growth and approved projects in the study area. Based on the ICU analysis, mitigating measures will be suggested to off-set any adverse traffic impacts caused by the Family Fitness Center. These suggested mitigating measures will be sketched on a 40-scale aerial (provided by the City). TASK IV: Parkins Survey A parking survey will be conducted at the existing site on a typical weekday to determine the amount of available parking which can be utilized to support the proposed health club. The parking survey will be conducted at the site from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM at half-hour intervals. •Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineero Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 24, 1993 Page 3 A second parking survey will be conducted at a similar fitness facility to identify the parking demand by time of day for this type of use. Our experience has indicated that the peak parking demand for health clubs occurs on Mondays. Therefore, the survey will be completed on a Monday from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM. In addition, an inventory will be completed at the existing site to verify the actual number of parking spaces presently available at the site. TASK V. Parking Analysis Shared parking projections which reflect design ratios and profiles developed from actual site field study and Urban Land Institute (ULI)information assuming full site occupancy will be prepared. Based on the two parking surveys, forecast parking projections and available parking supply, the magnitude of expected parking deficiencies or surpluses will be identified. TASK VI: Traffic Impact Study A Traffic Impact Study will be prepared which will outline our findings and recommendations. This report will be consistent with the City's Traffic Study Format, and incorporate both traffic and parking analyses for the site. FEE ESTIMATE Based on the Scope of Work outlined above, we estimate that the services for Tasks I through VI can be accomplished within a total cost, not to exceed $5,100.00 without your prior authorization. ADDITIONAL WORK We will also be pleased to provide additional support beyond the Scope of Work outlined above as you may require. Such additional tasks include, but are not limited to the following: machine and/or manual counts, evaluation of traffic impact during other hours or weekends, preparation of scaled improvement drawings and attendance at public meetings. Such tasks will be considered extra work and will be billed on a time and materials basis using the attached Fee Schedule or the Fee Schedule in effect at the time of the request. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY I Should this proposal be accepted, the Client (represented by the signature below) agrees to limit Linscott, Law&Greenspan, Engineers liability to the Client and to all Contractors and *inscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineer* Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 24, 1993 Page 4 Subcontractors on the project due to Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers negligent acts, errors or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers to all those named shall not exceed $50,000 or Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers total fee for services rendered on this project, whichever is greater. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to providing professional services on this project. You may indicate acceptance by signing in the space provided below, returning the original to us, and keeping the enclosed copy for your files. Should you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, L NS�COTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, E GINEERS s Todd E. Salvagin Transportation Engineer II Attachment ACCEPTED FOR TASKS I THROUGH VI AS OUTLINED ABOVE,NOT TO EXCEED $5,100.00 WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. �o ` P'4 , ( uthorized Ag t) (Titl6) (Ato �— (Federal I.D. #) 740/93 (Address) (Date) CATFMROPOSAL\P2930054.PRO •inscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineer FEE SCHEDULE January 25, 1993 TITLE PER HOUR Principal PrincipalEngineer ` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 127.00 Transportation Engineers Senior Transportation Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 103.00 Transportation Engineer III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Engineer II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Engineer I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Transportation Planners Senior Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Planner III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Planner II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Transportation Planner I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Technical Support Engineering Associate II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62.00 EngineeringAssociate I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 CADD Drafter/Senior Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician I . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Engineering Computer Analyst II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Engineering Drafter/Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 WordProcessor/Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45.00 Engineering Computer Analyst I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.00 Engineering Aide II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.00 Engineering Aide I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28.00 * Principal-In-Charge will be billed at $155 per hour. Public Hearing support may be charged at 12.5% of the base rate. Subcontractors and other project-related expenses will be billed at cost plus 15%. Consultation in connection with litigation and Court appearances will be quoted separately. The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 1.50 times the standard hourly rates. Interim and/or monthly statements will be presented for completed work These will be due and payable upon presentation unless prior arrangements are made. A finance charge of 1.5%may be charged each month on the unpaid balance. Rev.03r93 SEW Po • ° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m U z P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 G9</FO ft PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 July 21, 1993 Chip Williams S9 ' ►31 Gensler & Associates 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92715 Subject: Qfrice Building Traffic Study Dear Mr. Williams: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal from Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers to provide professional traffic engineering services for the proposed addition to 600 Newport Center Drive. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work required, estimated time schedule for completion, and estimated budget required for the preparation of the studies. The fee requested has been reviewed by the City, and the amount requested for the tasks required is considered appropriate and warranted. To proceed with the study, it is requested that you remit the following fees: Consultant Fees $ 5,100 City Fees (10%) 510 Total Request: $ 5,610 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. BEWICKER, Director By John R. Douglas, , CP Principal Planner Attachment F\JM\E1R-D0C9\PAC-TEGTP0 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach LIOSCOTT ,LRW&GREENSPRN TE*o .7146410139 Jul 20 ,93 15 :42 No .007 P .01 •r - • LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC FNGINFFRING • PARKING 1 SOU COIIPORAII. ORIVL. SUITE 122. COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92926 TF.LFPHONE• (714) 041.1587 • FAX (714) 041.0139 PI III IP M LINSCOI I P L JACK M GRCCNSPAN. P t N'ACSIMILE '1'KANSMISSION AIIUI W WII K NSON. PC u ONO warm.P r OONAI I)W HAnKI-n• P 1. Date:_ July 20, 1993 Job No: P2930054 Project: lamily Pitncss Center CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH- To: Attn: Rich Edmonston From: Todd Salvagin Comments: Total number of Pages 6 (Including Cover Sheet): Receiving Facsimile Number: (714) 644-3318 Sending Facsimile Number: 714 A1.0139 XX Bard Copy will be sent. to Mr, John Douglass !lard Copy will not be sent, IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE FOLLOWING NUMBER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (714) 641-1587. OTHER OF(-ICES: PASADENA TELLPHONE. (213) 6151•?H29 . FAX (018I t92.0941 SAN OIFGO TFI FPHONL-: (010) 299.3090 . I AX (6191 999•/041 AN LG,2WR COMPANY r L,INSCUTT I LAW&GREENSPAN T•No . 7146410139 J16 20 , 93 15 :42 No .007 P . 02 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPOHI Al ION PLANNING• TRAFFIC F-NGINEERING• PARKING 158U CORPORAL L- DRIVE, SUITE 122, COSTA MFSA, CALU OHNIA 92626 1ELFPHONE: (714) 641.1587 • I AX: (714) 041•0139 PHILIP M tINSGOi 1,P.e. Jul 20 1993 JACK M.01WI NSPAN,RE Y f WILLIAM A. LAW,P[ PAUL W WILKIN$UN•P E LEON D.WARD, P.F DONALD W.HAHKMI,P,r. Mr. John Douglass, Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT REACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES Family Fitness Center, 6UU Newport Center Drive Dear Mr. Douglass: ' Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers is pleased to submit the following proposal as it pertains to the proposed Family Fitness Center to be located within the office complex at 600 Newport Center Drive. As we understand it, Family Fitness proposes to occupy vacant space which presently exists in the office building located at 600 Newport Center Drive. In addition, the health club will also expand an additional 5,000 square feet. Based oil our discussions with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Traffic Engineering Staff, preparation of a Traffic Impact/Parking Study as defined by the following Scope of Work is required: SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1: Existing Traffic Volume Data As defined by the City Traffic Department, the following six intersections will make up the study area: • Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road • Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road/Pacific Coast Highway • MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road • MacArthur Boulevard/Sail Miguel Drive • MacArthur Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway OTHER OFHI(:LS: PASADFNA TELCPI(ONE: (213) 681.282U • FAX: (816) 79L-U941 SAN DIEGO TCLEPHONE• I(it91 2993090 - FAX' (619) 200.704I Ll. 8 II ,LHWKUREENSFHN I No . r10410169 Jul 20 ,96 1b :42 No .00e F .US Linscou, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Mr. John Douglass CITY 01- NUMPURT BEACH July 20, 1993 Page 2 It is our understanding that, AM and PM peak hour traffic volume data for each of these intersections is on file and will be provided by the City. TASK II: Project Traffic Generation & Distribution Traffic anticipated to be, generated by the proposed health chub will be based on available traffic generation data for health clubs which will be reviewed by City Staff prior to use in the report. The project-related traffic will be distributed to the street system based on anticipated travel patterns to/from the site. TASK IM Intersection Analysis Using the City's two and one-half hour analysis procedure, the six study intersections will be analyzed to determine whether formal analysis using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method will be required. As stated by the City's guidelines, if project generated traffic during the peak two and one- half hour period is greater than 19o' of the total background (existing plus regional growth plus approved projects) two and one-half hour volume, than an ICU analysis for the peak hour will be completed for the following conditions.- A. Existing traffic volumes,'plus regional growth, plus approved projects; * and B. "A" plus project traffic. * It is our understanding that, the City will provide information on regional growth and approved projects in the study area. Based on the ICU analysis, mitigating measures will be suggested to off-set any adverse traffic impacts caused by the Family Fitness Center. These suggested mitigating measures will be sketched on a 40-scale aerial (provided by the City). TASK IV: Parking Survey A parking survey will be conducted at the existing site on a typical weekday to determine the amount of available parking which can be utilized to support the proposed health club. L.IISCOTT ,LAW&GREENSPAN ToNo .7146410139 J620 ,93 15 : 42 N0 .007 P .04 Llnscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Mr. John Douglass CITY Ol, NEWPORT BEACI3 July 20, 1993 Page 3 Thu parking survey will be conducted at the site from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM at half-hour intervals. A second parking survey will be conducted at a similar fitness facility to identify the parking demand by time of day for this type of use. Our experience has indicated that the peak parking demand for health clubs occurs on Mondays. Therefore, the survey will be completed on a Monday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. In addition, an inventory will be completed at the existing site to verify the actual number of parking spaces presently available at the site. TASK V: Parking Analysis Shared parking projections which reflect design ratios and profiles developed from actual site field study and Urban Land Institute(ULI) information assuming full site occupancy will be prepared. Based on the two parking surveys, forecast parking projections and available parking supply, the magnitude of expected parking deficiencies or surpluses will be identified. TASK VI: TrAfTic Impact Study A Traffic Impact Study will be prepared which will outline our findings and recommendations. This report will be consistent with the City's Traffic Study Format, and incorporate both traffic and parking analyses for the site. FEE ESTIMATE Based on the Scope of Work outlined above, we estimate that the services for Tasks I through VI can be accomplished within a total cost, not to exceed $5,300.00 without your prior authorization. ADDITIONAL WORK We will also be pleased to provide additional support beyond the Scope of Work outlined above as you may require. Such additional tasks include, but are not limited to the LINSCOTT ,LAW&6REENSPAN TI*No .7146410139 J�20 ,93 15 :42 No .007 P .05 . ti Linscotl, Law & Greenspan, Englneers Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20, 1993 Page 4 fallowing: machine and/or manual counts, evaluation of traffic impact during other hours or weekends, preparation of scaled improvement drawings and attendance at public meetings. Such tasks will he considered extra work and will be billed on a time and materials basis using the attached lee Schedule or the Fee Schedule in effect at the time of the request, Very truly yours, LINSCOIT, LAW & GREENSPAN) ENGINEERS Todd E. SalvagiK Transportation Engineer H Attachlnent ACCEPTED FOR TASKS 1 THROUGH VI AS OUTLINED ABOVE,NOT TO EXCEED $5,100.00 WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. (Authorized Agent) (Title) (Firm) (Federal I.D. #) (Address) (Date) L17 *ROPOSAt V79'W4.PR0 LI'N�COTT ,LABGREENSPAN TE•No . 7146410139 Ju&0 ,93 15 :42 No .007 P .06 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers FEE SCHEDULE Effective January 25, 1993 TITLE PER HOUR Princlpal Principal Engineer M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 127.00 Transportation Engineers Senior Transportation Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 103.00 Transportation Engineer III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Engineer II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Engineer I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 TranVortatlon Planners Senior Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Planner III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Planner II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Transportation Planner I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Technical Support Engineering Associate II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62.00 Engineering Associate I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 CADD Drafter/Senior Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Engineering Computer Analyst II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52,00 Engineering Drafter/Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Word Processor/Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45.00 Engineering Computer Analyst I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . $ 39.00 Engineering Aide 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.00 EngineeringAide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28.00 Principal-In-Charge will be billed at$155 per hour. Public Hearing support may be charged at 125%of the base rate. Subcontractors and other project-related expenses will be billed at cost plus 15%. Consullatiou in connection with litigation and Court appearances will be quoted separately. '1110 above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 1.50 times tho standard hourly rates. Interim and/or monthly statements will be presented for completed work. These will be due and payable upon presentation unless prior arrangements are made. A finance charge of 1.5%may be charged each month on the unpaid balance, Linscott, Law& Greenspan, Engineers fi LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING• PARKING AM JUL 2 -. 1993 PFA 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 122, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 718191101ll11211PA415)6 TELEPHONE: (714) 641-1587 • FAX: (714) 641-0139 APHILIP M. LINSCOTT,P.E JACK M GREENSPAN,P.E. July 20, 1993 WILLIAM A LAW, P.E. PAUL W.WILKINSON.P.E. LEON D.WARD, P.E. DONALD W.BARKER, P.E. John Douglass, Environmental Coordinator CI l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH G/ P.O. Box 1768 cop ) Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES Family Fitness Center, 600 Newport Center Drive Dear Mr. Douglass: Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers is pleased to submit the following proposal as it pertains to the proposed Family Fitness Center to be located within the office complex at 600 Newport Center Drive. As we understand it, Family Fitness proposes to occupy vacant space which presently exists in the office building located at 600 Newport Center Drive. In addition, the health club will also expand an additional 5,000 square feet. — Based on our discussions with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Traffic Engineering Staff, preparation of a Traffic Impact/Parking Study as defined by the following Scope of Work is required: SCOPE OF WORK TASK I: Existing Traffic Volume Data As defined by the City Traffic Department, the following six intersections will make up the study area: • Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road • Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive • Jamboree Road/Pacific Coast Highway • MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road • MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive • MacArthur Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway OTHER OFFICES: PASADENA TELEPHONE: (213) 681-2629 • FAX: (818) 792-0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE: (619) 299-3090 • FAX: (619) 299.7041 AN LG2WB COMPANY l Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20, 1993 Page 2 It is our understanding that, AM and PM peak hour traffic volume data for each of these intersections is on file and will be provided by the City. TASK II: Project Traffic Generation & Distribution Traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed health club will be based on available traffic generation data for health clubs which will be reviewed by City Staff prior to use in the report. The project-related traffic will be distributed to the street system based on anticipated travel patterns to/from the site. TASK III: Intersection Analysis Using the City's two and one-half hour analysis procedure, the six study intersections will be analyzed to determine whether formal analysis using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method will be required. As stated by the City's guidelines, if project generated traffic during the peak two and one- half hour period is greater than 1% of the total background (e)isting plus regional growth plus approved projects) two and one-half hour volume, than an ICU analysis for the peak hour will be completed for the following conditions: A. Existing traffic volumes, plus regional growth, plus approved projects; * and B. "A" plus project traffic. * It is our understanding that, the City will provide information on regional growth and approved projects in the study area. Based on the ICU analysis, mitigating measures will be suggested to off-set any adverse traffic impacts caused by the Family Fitness Center. These suggested mitigating measures will be sketched on a 40-scale aerial (provided by the City). TASK IV: Parking Survey A parking survey will be conducted at the existing site on a typical weekday to determine the amount of available parking which can be utilized to support the proposed health club. •inscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20, 1993 Page 3 The parking survey will be conducted at the site from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM at half-hour intervals. A second parking survey will be conducted at a similar fitness facility to identify the parking demand by time of day for this type of use. Our experience has indicated that the peak parking demand for health clubs occurs on Mondays. Therefore, the survey will be completed on a Monday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. In addition, an inventory will be completed at the existing site to verify the actual number of parking spaces presently available at the site. TASK V: Parking Analysis Shared parking projections which reflect design ratios and profiles developed from actual site field study and Urban Land Institute (ULI) information assuming full site occupancy will be prepared. Based on the two parking surveys, forecast parking projections and available parking supply, the magnitude of expected parking deficiencies or surpluses will be identified. TASK VI: Traffic Impact Study A Traffic Impact Study will be prepared which will outline our findings and recommendations. This report will be consistent with the City's Traffic Study Format, and incorporate both traffic and parking analyses for the site. FEE ESTIMATE Based on the Scope of Work outlined above, we estimate that the services for Tasks I through VI can be accomplished within a total cost, not to exceed $5,100.00 without your prior authorization. ADDITIONAL WORK We will also be pleased to provide additional support beyond the Scope of Work outlined above as you may require. Such additional tasks include, but are not limited to the I Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20, 1993 Page 4 following: machine and/or manual counts, evaluation of traffic impact during other hours or weekends, preparation of scaled improvement drawings and attendance at public meetings. Such tasks will be considered extra work and will be billed on a time and materials basis using the attached Fee Schedule or the Fee Schedule in effect at the time of the request. Very truly yours, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS ell C� 2 -. Todd E. Salvagm Transportation Engineer II Attachment ACCEPTED FOR TASKS I THROUGH VI AS OUTLINED ABOVE,NOT TO EXCEED $5,100.00 WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. (Authorized Agent) (Title) (Firm) (Federal I.D. #) (Address) (Date) CATESTROPOSAUP2930054RRO •Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers FEE SCHEDULE Effective January 25, 1993 TITLE PER HOUR Principal Principal Engineer * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 127.00 Transportation Engineers Senior Transportation Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 103.00 Transportation Engineer III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Engineer lI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Engineer I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Transportation Planners Senior Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Planner III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Planner II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Technical Support Engineering Associate II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62.00 Engineering Associate I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 CADD Drafter/Senior Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Engineering Computer Analyst II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Engineering Drafter/Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 WordProcessor/Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45.00 Engineering Computer Analyst I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.00 Engineering Aide II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.00 Engineering Aide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28.00 * Principal-In-Charge will be billed at$155 per hour. Public Hearing support may be charged at 125% of the base rate. Subcontractors and other project-related expenses will be billed at cost plus 15%. Consultation in connection with litigation and Court appearances will be quoted separately. The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 1.50 times the standard hourly rates. Interim and/or monthly statements will be presented for completed work. These will be due and payable upon presentation unless prior arrangements are made. A finance charge of 1.5%may be charged each month on the unpaid balance. Linscoff, Law& Greenspan, Engineers LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING •TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • PARKING 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 122, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE: (714) 641-1587 • FAX: (714) 641-0139 PHILIP M. LINSCOTT,P.E. JACK M.GREENSPAN, P.E. July 20, 1993 WILLIAM A. LAW, P.E. PAUL W.WILKINSON,P.E. LEON D WARD,RE DONALD W BARKER, P E Mr. John Douglass, Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES Family Fitness Center, 600 Newport Center Drive Dear Mr. Douglass: Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers is pleased to submit the following proposal as it pertains to the proposed Family Fitness Center to be located within the office complex at 600 Newport Center Drive. As we understand it, Family Fitness proposes to occupy vacant space which presently exists in the office building located at 600 Newport Center Drive., In addition, the health club-will also expand an additional 5,000 square feet. Based on our discussions with the City of Newport Beach Planning and Traffic Engineering Staff, preparation of a•Traffic Impact/Parking Study as defined by the following Scope of Work is required: SCOPE OF WORK TASK I: Existing Traffic Volume Data As defined by the City Traffic Department, the following six intersections will make up the study area: • Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road • Jamboree Road/Santa Barbara Drive • Jamboree Road/Pacific Coast Highway • MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road • MacArthur Boulevard/San Miguel Drive • MacArthur Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway OTHER OFFICES: PASADENA TELEPHONE: (213) 681.2629 • FAX, (818) 792-0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE: (619) 299-3090 • FAX: (619) 299.7041 AN LG2WB COMPANY Ili Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers• Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20, 1993 Page 2 It is our understanding that, AM and PM peak hour traffic volume data for each of these intersections is on file and will be provided by the City. TASK II: Project Traffic Generation & Distribution Traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed health club will be based on available traffic generation data for health clubs which will be reviewed by City Staff prior to use in the report. The project-related traffic will be distributed to the street system based on anticipated travel patterns to/from the site. TASK III: Intersection Analysis Using the City's two and one-half hour analysis procedure, the six study intersections will be analyzed to determine whether formal analysis using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method will be required. As stated by the City's guidelines, if project generated traffic during the peak two and one- half hour period is greater than 1% of the total background (e)dsting plus regional growth plus approved projects) two and one-half hour volume, than an ICU analysis for the peak hour will be completed for the following conditions: A. Existing traffic volumes, plus regional growth, plus approved projects; * and B. "A" plus project traffic. * It is our understanding that, the City will provide information on regional growth and approved projects in the study area. Based on the ICU analysis, mitigating measures will be suggested to off-set any adverse traffic impacts caused by the Family Fitness Center. These suggested mitigating measures will be sketched on a 40-scale aerial (provided by the City). TASK IV: Parkins Survey A parking survey will be conducted at the existing site on a typical weekday to determine the amount of available parking which can be utilized to support the proposed health club. i y Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20, 1993 Page 3 The parking survey will be conducted at the site from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM at 'half-hour intervals. A second parking survey will be conducted at a similar fitness facility to identify the parking demand by time of day for this type of use. Our experience has indicated that the peak parking demand for health clubs occurs on Mondays. Therefore, the survey will be completed on a Monday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. In addition, an inventory will be completed at the existing site to verify the actual number of parking spaces pfesently available at the site. TASK V: Parking Analysis Shared parking projections which reflect design ratios and profiles developed from actual site field study and Urban Land Institute (ULI) information assuming full site occupancy will be prepared. Based on the two parking surveys, forecast parking projections and available parking supply, the magnitude of expected parking deficiencies or surpluses will be identified. TASK VI: Traffic Impact Study A Traffic Impact Study will be prepared which will outline our findings and recommendations. This report will be consistent with the City's Traffic Study Format, and incorporate both traffic and parking analyses for the site. FEE ESTIMATE Based on the Scope of Work outlined above, we estimate that the services for Tasks I through VI can be accomplished within a total cost, not to exceed $5,100.00 without your prior authorization. ADDITIONAL WORK We will also be pleased to provide additional support beyond the Scope of Work outlined above as you may require. Such additional tasks include, but are not limited to the • Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Mr. John Douglass CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 20, 1993 Page 4 following: machine and/or manual counts, evaluation of traffic impact during other hours or weekends, preparation of scaled improvement drawings and attendance at public meetings. Such tasks will be considered extra work and will be billed on a time and materials basis using the attached Fee Schedule or the Fee Schedule in effect at the time of the request. Very truly yours, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS Todd E. Salvagm Transportation Engineer H Attachment ACCEPTED FOR TASKS I THROUGH VI AS OUTLINED ABOVE,NOT TO EXCEED $5,100.00 WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. (Authorized Agent) (Title) (Firm) (Federal I.D. #) Address Date CXEWR0P0SAUP29M4.PR0 ' •scott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers• FEE SCHEDULE Effective January 25, 1993 TITLE PER HOUR Principal Principal Engineer * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 127.00 Transportation Engineers Senior Transportation Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 103.00 Transportation Engineer III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Engineer II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Engineer I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Transportation Planners Senior Transportation Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 88.00 Transportation Planner III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 75.00 Transportation Planner Il . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Transportation Planner I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Technical Support Engineering Associate II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62.00 Engineering Associate I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 CADD Drafter/Senior Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57.00 Modeling Technician I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 Engineering Computer Analyst Il . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . $ 52.00 Engineering Drafter/Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52.00 WordProcessor/Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45.00 Engineering Computer Analyst I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.00 Engineering Aide II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39.00 Engineering Aide I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28.00 * Principal-In-Charge will be billed at $155 per hour. Public Hearing support may be charged at 125%of the base rate. Subcontractors and other project-related expenses will be billed at cost plus 15%. Consultation in connection with litigation and Court appearances will be quoted separately. The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will be charged at 1.50 times the standard hourly rates. Interim and/or monthly statements will be presented for completed work. These will be due and payable upon presentation unless prior arrangements are made. A finance charge of 1.5%may be charged each month on the unpaid balance. Linscoff, Law& Greenspan, Engineers aEW PO6,r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 C'9<lFO RN�P NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the applications of Family Fitness Center for General Plan Amendment No 93-2(D) Traffic Study No. 87 and Use Permit No. 3509 on property located at 600 Newport Center Drive. General Plan Amendment No. 93-2(D) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to increase the development allocation in Block 600 of Newport Center 1y3,805.square feet to 1284134 square feet so as to allow an addition to the existing building at 600 Newport Center Drive: and Traffic Study No. 87 Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the conversion of approximately 14 445 square feet of existing general office space and restaurant space to athletic club purposes The proposal also includes the construction of 3.805± square feet of additional floor area. to be also used in conjunction with the proposed athletic club: and Use Permit No.3509 Request to permit the establishment of an 18,250 square foot athletic club on property located in the APF-H District. The proposal also includes a request to establish the parking requirement for the athletic club based on a demonstrated formula. 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 23rd day of September 1993, 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. Anne Gifford, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers I ' TRAFFIC & PARKING IMPACT STUDY FAMILY FITNESS CENTER ' City of Newport Beach, California ' Prepared For: ' Mr. John Douglass Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659 Submitted By: LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 641-1587 ' September 7, 1993 ' 2-931647-1 Prepared By: ' Todd E. Salvagin Transportation Engineer II ' LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING•TRAFFIC ENGINEERING •PARKING 1580 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 122, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 ' TELEPHONE. (714) 641.1587 • FAX* (714) 641-0139 PHILIP M UNSCOTT,P.E. JACK M GREENSPAN,P.E. WILLIAM A. LAW, P.E. ' September 7, 1993 LEON D.WARD, P.E. P E DONALD W. BARKER,P.E. Mr. John Douglass, Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92659 ' SUBJECT: TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACT STUDY ' FAMILY FITNESS CENTER City of Newport Beach, California ' Dear Mr. Douglass: ' Linscott, Law&Greenspan,Engineers is pleased to submit the following Traffic and Parking Impact study for the proposed Family Fitness Center to be located at 600 Newport Center Drive. ' This study has been prepared following the City's Traffic Impact Criteria, and study preparation guidelines, and presents our findings regarding traffic impact caused by the ' project, parking characteristics of a Family Fitness Center, and the results of the Family Fitness Center "sharing parking" with the adjacent 610 Newport Center Drive Building. ' If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, ' LIN COTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS ' Todd E. Salvagm Transportation Engineer II ' Enclosures C.WESIREPORM647C0V.LET ' OTHER OFFICES: PASADENA TELEPHONE: (213) 681-2629 • FAX: (818) 792-0941 SAN DIEGO TELEPHONE: (619) 299-3090 • FAX: (619) 299-7041 AN LG2WB COMPANY ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ' DESCRIPTION NO ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 PARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers LIST OF TABLES ' TABLE PAGE NO DESCRIPTION NO ' 1 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' IA TWO AND ONE-HALF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . 3 ' 2 1% TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 REQUIRED PARKING CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ' 5 TOTAL PARKING DEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ' LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE NO DESCRIPTION NO ' 1 SITE VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ' 2 PROJECT ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE PATTERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 2%2 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 LIST OF CHARTS CHART NO DESCRIPTION ' 1 EXISTING PARKING DEMAND ' 2 EXISTING FAMILY FITNESS CENTER PARKING RATE 3 TOTAL PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TRAFFIC/PARKING IMPACT STUDY FAMILY FITNESS CENTER ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Family Fitness is proposing to open a new Family Fitness Center (FFC) within the existing 600 Newport Center Drive office building in the City of Newport Beach, California. The project site is located south of San Joaquin Hills Road, west of Santa Rosa Drive and north ' of Newport Center Drive. Exhibit 1 depicts the approximate project location. As proposed, the facility will provide a total of 18,250 square feet (SF) of physical fitness ' area which will include an aerobic workout area, weight rooms, locker room facilities, etc. Operating hours for the FFC will be from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM during the week. ' The FFC will be located on the ground level of the 600 Building and will take the place of approximately 14,445 net SF of general office space (previously the Paradise Cafe) within the building. The additional 3,805 SF of fitness area (as compared to the existing office ' space area) will be provided by the expansion and renovation of the prior office space to provide for the fitness center. ' Parking for the 610 Building and the proposed FFC (600 Building) will be provided by the multi-level parking garage adjacent to the 600 and 610 Buildings on Newport Center Drive. This garage has an existing supply of 1,099 parking spaces. 1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed FFC has been based on San Diego Tra c Generators (SANDAG) rates rather than the Institute of TraMportation Engineers (ITE). 5th ' Edition, Trip Mazzual. In concurrence with City Staff, the SANDAG rates were selected because it anticipates a greater peak hour traffic volume generation for the FFC than ITE rates, and because the ITE rates were based on a single study at a facility which was 43,000 tSF, which is not consistent with the proposed 18,250 SF FFC. Table 1 depicts the estimated vehicular trips for the FFC. ' 1 P'rV''�4 }'tJ'' •.,`F � I. �.1.` � fv j d.I S 'U �ll. •-�1/ w, AI ♦ •J'• IF/�,��n y 4 9IUFl . `► A 73" o Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' TABLE 1 ' PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FAMILY FITNESS CENTER ' Newport Beach ' PEAK IIOUR GENERATION FORECAST AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Daily TWO- Family Use Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total TW Family Fitness ' Center 18 12 30 40 25 65 730 18,250 SF' ' Family Fitness Center traffic generation based on SANDAG trip rates. As shown by this table, the FFC is expected to generate a total of 730 vehicular trips on a daily basis (365 inbound, 365 outbound), of which 30 occur during the AM peak hour (18 inbound, 12 outbound), and 65 occur during the PM peak hour (40 inbound, 25 outbound). ' The above peak hour volumes have been upwardly adjusted by a City approved factor of two to anticipate the projects 2'/2 hour peak traffic generation. Table 1A depicts the ' anticipated 2'/2 peak hour traffic which will be used for analysis within this report. TABLE 1A 2 1/2 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ' FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach TWO AND ONE, PEAK HOUR GENERATION FORECAST AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Daily ' Land Use Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Two- rya Family Fitness Center 36 24 60 80 50 130 730 ' 18,250 SF ' Daily traffic generation will not change. 3 I� ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' It should be noted that these site-generated numbers do not take into account the potential of employees within the 610 Building and the other surrounding office buildings utilizing the ' FFC. It is anticipated that these people would already be within the project site and, therefore, would not add additional impacts to the roadway system. However, for purposes of this report, the generation volumes presented in Table 1A have been used, thereby ' making this analysis conservative. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION An arrival/departure pattern which illustrates the roadways that the site generated vehicles would utilize to enter/exit the site is depicted by Exhibit 2. This pattern is based on existing peak hour traffic flow volumes within the study area and input from City Staff. ' It should be noted that this arrival/departure pattern acknowledges the fact that vehicles departing the FFC are prohibited from performing a left-hand turn onto northbound Santa Rosa Drive. Exhibit 3 depicts the result of applying the peak 2'/2 hour site-generated traffic to the study area intersections based on the arrival/departure pattern. ' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS City Methodology Traffic impact analysis for the project has been completed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach's required 1% Traffic Volumes Analysis format. In accordance with this ' format, the existing peak 2'/2 hour approach volumes of each of the study area intersections are added to the following: ' A. A 2%2 peak hour regional growth volume (provided by the City); and B. Peak 2'/2 hour traffic volumes generated by approved projects (provided by the City). The sum of the background 2'/2 peak hour traffic volumes is then multiplied by .01 (1%) and is then compared to the 2'/2 peak hour traffic generated by the project for each intersection's approach. If the project site traffic is greater than or equal to 1% of the background traffic for any approach, additional intersection analysis must be completed for the impacted intersection using the Intersection Capacity Utilization Method (ICU). If the project site is less than 1% of the background traffic, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on that intersection. 4 t 1 1 h 1 " SPA Sa "o J i+ vo9 �' ryh�t.► OG�y cl ? 73 s; SITE* FASHION S as DR yi`, o ISLAND � `S 1 -V23X a 1SV3 ZG pR 17>,7 MSG r7X� M 0 ' o9sT ^k s� t s� 1 1 00 KEY ' CX= = INBOUND PERCENTAGE 2 NORTH D .4X= = OUTBOUND PERCENTAGE PROJECT ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE PATTERN ' '[G Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers FAMILY FlTNESS CENTER, NEWPORT BEACH 5 1 sf�?J ?o / J vo9 < m to SITE,,, 0 AN pR Jyj FASHION S to A ISLAND ROS �mry`6l .vCv 1p a ' s4(al, 812 OW 1Sv3 N1a J N 10 god Io � eo � J ' 00 3 1 NORTH 2 1/2 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' 'fG Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers FAMILY FITNESS CENTER, NEWPORT BEACH 6 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' Analyzed Intersections Based on the location of the proposed FFC, the following intersections have been selected by City Staff to be analyzed for this project: ' San Joaquin Hills Road @ Jamboree Road @ MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard @ Pacific Coast Highway ' @ San Miguel Drive ' Jamboree Road @ Santa Barbara Drive @ Pacific Coast Highway ' Traffic Data Provided by the City of Newport Beach ' Existing peak 2'/2 hour traffic volumes, regional growth rates, and traffic to be generated by approved cumulative developments have been provided by City Staff for each of the above ' intersections on an intersection approach base. This data has been used to estimate the peak 2'/2 hour background traffic volumes. One-Percent (1%) Traffic Volume Test Table 2 depicts the 1% background approach volumes, the 2'/2 project traffic generated volumes, and results of the 1% Traffic Volume test, for each of the studied intersections. Detailed analysis sheets, using the City's methodology, are attached at the end of this report. ' As shown by this table, comparing the 2'/2 peak hour project traffic to the 1% background volumes for each intersection approach volume indicate that all intersection approach volumes, with exception of the intersection of San Joaquin Road/MacArthur Boulevard, are impacted by less than 1% of the background volume. At the intersection of MacArthur/San Joaquin, the 2'/2 peak hour project volume equals the ' 1% background traffic volume. During the AM peak hour, the eastbound approach of San Joaquin has a project volume of 6 vehicles equal to the background traffic. During the PM, the westbound approach of San Joaquin has a project volume of 12 vehicles, also equal to the 1% background. Since both of these project generated volumes are relatively minor volumes, and are not greater than the 1% background volumes, it is anticipated that the FFC will not have a significant impact on the operation of this intersection. To confirm that this location does not have a significant impact, ICU analysis has been completed. 7 TABLE 2 1% TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach AM PEAK PM PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection Approach 1%Background/2V2 Project 1%Background/2'/2 Project Significant Impact San Joaquin Hills Road @ Jamboree Road NB 53 / 0 501 0 No/No SB 54/ 8 71 /20 No/No EB 8/ 0 4/ 0 No/No r WB 9/ 6 17/ 12 No/No y n 0 @ MacArthur NB 37/ 0 32/ 0 No/No Boulevard SB 501 2 59/ 6 No/No r EB 6/ 6 * 21 / 12 ** f WB 18/ 6 12/ 12 * ** 20 00 Jamboree Road @ Santa Barbara NB 501 6 37/ 12 No/No y Drive SB 40/ 0 61 / 0 No/No EB 2/ 0 11 0 No/No WB 7/ 2 26/ 4 No/No m NB 16/ 2 12/ 4 No/No m @ Pacific Coast SB 28/ 2 51 / 4 No/No Highway EB 65 /10 60/22 No/No m WB 31 / 6 48/ 12 No/No MacArthur Boulevard @ Pacific Coast NB 0/ 0 0/ 0 No/No Highway SB 16/ 4 31 / 8 No/No EB 27/ 0 46/ 2 No/No WB 57/ 8 42/16 No/No NB 38/ 6 25 / 12 No/No @ San Miguel Drive SB 33/ 0 37/ 0 No/No EB 6/ 4 24/ 8 No/No WB 81 0 8/ 0 No/No * Peak hour project traffic volume equals, but is not greater than 1%background traffic. ** ICU analysis have been completed to determine if project has a significant impact. QXTESREPoals1647raL2 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers Capacity Analysis (ICU methodl Based on the City's impact criteria, ICU analysis were completed for the intersection of MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills whose 2'/2 peak hour project traffic volume equals the 1% background traffic volume. Table 3 presents the results of the service level analysis at the subject intersection. TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach Peak Existing Background Background ICU Intersection Hour Condition w/o Project with Project Difference (1) (2) (3) MacArthur @ AM 0.73/C 0.89/D 0.89/D 0.00 ' San Joaquin Hills PM 0.67/13 0.85/D 0.85/D 0.00 As presented in column one, the MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills intersection currently operates at LOS C and B during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The second column, identifies a LOS D during both peak periods with the projected background traffic volumes. Anticipated service levels with the addition of project traffic are presented in column three. Project traffic is not expected to have any impact on operating conditions as ' is depicted in the last column of the table. PARKING Parking surveys were conducted between the hours of 7:00 AM through 7:00 PM at the existing parking garage adjacent to 600 and 610 Newport Center Drive on Tuesday, August 3, 1993, and the existing Family Fitness Center on Katella Avenue in Los Alamitos, California on Monday, August 9, 1993. Summarized counts sheets are attached at the end ' of this report. Based on the results of these surveys, Chart 1 (located at the end of this report) has been ' prepared which illustrates the actual parking demand characteristics of the parking structure, and the Los Alamitos Family Fitness. As this chart indicates, the parking structure has a peak parking demand at 10:00 AM when 476 vehicles were parked. Parking at the FFC in ' Los Alamitos peaked at 5:30 PM when 111 vehicles were parked. ' 9 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' Chart 2 illustrates the result of dividing the actual square footage of the Los Alamitos FFC (18,000 SF)by the surveyed parking demand, resulting in the existing parking demand ratios. ' As illustrated by the Chart, the FFC has a peak parking demand ratio of 6.17 parking spaces per 1,000 SF at 5:30 PM. ' Table 4 depicts the required number of parking spaces for both the 600 and 610 Buildings based on the existing use (office space) using the city's parking code of 4 spaces/1,000 SF of net area, and parking required based on the proposed 610 Building with the FFC. ' TABLE 4 REQUIRED PARKING CHARACTERISTICS FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach BUILDING PARKING RATIO PARKING REQUIRED Existing • 600 Building Office 4.0/1,000 SF 58 Spaces (14,445 Net SF) • 610 Building Office 4.0/1,000 SF t 1,094 Spaces (273,533 Net SF) TOTAL EXISTING 1,152 Spaces ' Proposed • Family Fitness Center 6.2/1,000 SF ' 113 Spaces ' 600 Building (18.250 SF) • 610 Office Building 4.0/1,000 SF2 1,094 Spaces ' (273,533 Net SF) TOTAL PROPOSED 1,207 Spaces 1. City of Newport Beach parking code for general office space. 2. Existing parking demand for Family Fitness Center based on survey at Los Alamitos, CA. (FFC). ' As shown by Table 4, as the 600 and 610 Buildings exist today, 1,152 parking spaces are required to support the facility according to City code. The adjacent parking garage provides a total of 1,099 parking spaces. Therefore, according to City code, the parking garage has a deficit of 53 parking spaces. After the FFC is constructed, the 610 Building will continue to have 273,533 SF (net) of ' office space. The 600 Building will contain the 18,250 SF FFC. Applying the City's code for the office (4 spaces/1,000 SF) and the calculated parking demand for a FFC of 6.2/1,000 10 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' SF, the 600 and 610 Buildings would have a total parking demand of 1,207 spaces which would indicate a deficit of 108 parking spaces within the parking garage. It should be noted that this volume does not take into account potential shared parking between the office space and FFC. ' Table 5 has been prepared which outlines the existing actual parking demand of the occupied office within the 610 Building (224,300 SF), addition of parking required by the unoccupied portion of the 610 building at City code (197 parking spaces), and the addition of the 18,250 SF FFC at the 600 Building at the calculated parking rate of 6.2 spaces/1,000 SF (demand of 113 parking spaces). ' As shown, a peak parking demand of 786 spaces is anticipated at 10:00 AM (shown bolded), based on actual parking demand of the existing office and the proposed FFC, and projected demand for the unoccupied office space (City code). In accordance with this projected ' demand, the parking structure would provide a surplus of parking (313 spaces). Chart 3, located at the end of this report, illustrates a graphic representation of this methodology. ' SUMMARY ' The proposed FFC will provide a total of 18,250 SF of physical fitness area; and will be constructed on the ground level at 600 Newport Center Drive. ' The FFC will remove, or take the place of, approximately 14,445 SF of general office area within the 600 Building. • The FFC is expected to generate 730 vehicular trips on a daily basis; 20 during the AM peak hour, and 65 during the PM peak hour. • Analysis completed using the City of Newport Beach's 1% traffic impact criteria, indicates that the project will not have a significant impact on any of ' the studied intersections. • The parking garage adjacent to the 600 and 610 Buildings has a total parking supply of 1,099 spaces. • Parking demand survey conducted at the Los Alamitos FFC indicates that a ' FFC has a peak parking demand of 6.2 spaces/1,000 SF at 5:30 PM. The proposed FFC will have a demand of 113 parking spaces based on this actual demand. ' Peak Parking demand within the parking garage occurred at 10:00 AM,when 476 vehicles were parked. At 5:30 PM, 202 vehicles were parked (which is ' the anticipated peak for the FFC). ' 11 TABLE 5 TOTAL PARKING DEMAND FAMILY FITNESS CENTER Newport Beach Parking at City Existing Parking Code for Anticipated Demand 610 Bldg. Unoccupied Portion Parking for 600 Parking Supply 224,300 SF of 610 Bldg. FFC 18,250 SF Estimated Total at adjacent Surplus Parking Time Occupied 49,233 SF (6.2/1,000 SF) Parking Demand Garage (Deficit Parking) y 0 0 7:00 AM 79 197 113 389 1,099 710 7:30 AM 131 197 113 441 1,099 658 r- 8:00 AM 163 197 113 473 1,099 626 E 8:30 AM 258 197 113 568 1,099 513 90 9:00 AM 325 197 113 635 1,099 464 0 N 9:30 AM 384 197 113 694 1,099 405 m 10:00 AM 476 197 113 786 1,099 313 10:30 AM 466 197 113 776 1,099 323 v 11:00 AM 456 197 113 766 1,099 333 1130 AM 469 197 113 729 1,099 320 m 12:00 Noon 448 197 113 758 1,099 341 12:30 PM 439 197 113 749 1,099 350 1:00 PM 424 197 113 734 1,099 365 m 1:30 PM 432 197 113 742 1,099 357 m 2:00 PM 440 197 113 750 1,099 349 230 PM 443 197 113 753 1,099 346 3:00 PM 441 197 113 751 1,099 348 3:30 PM 433 197 113 743 1,099 356 4.00 PM 407 197 113 717 1,099 382 4.30 PM 386 197 113 696 1,099 403 5:00 PM 339 197 113 649 1,099 450 5:30 PM 202 197 113 512 1,099 587 6:00 PM 144 197 113 454 1,099 645 6:30 PM 94 197 113 404 1,099 695 7.00 PM 72 197 113 382 1,099 717 QTES a0R7W647ML4 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' The unoccupied portion of the 600 Building (49,233 SF) will require 197 parking spaces per City code (4 spaces/1,000 SF). ' The removal of 14,445 SF of office space in the 600 Building will result in a decrease in office parking demand of 58 spaces. The addition of the FFC will ' result in an increased demand of 113 spaces. • On an overall basis, the peak parking demand will occur at 10:00 AM when ' a demand of 786 parking spaces has been estimated. This will result in a surplus of 313 parking spaces within the parking structure adjacent to the 600 and 610 Newport Center Drive Buildings. 1 1 CATMEPORTW637.RPT 1 13 ' Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ' ATTACHMENTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 993 AM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2)k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2J, Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 2928 ccq%) 351 38(. 3 WP5 37 ' soutnbound 3785 li°J° ys 7 4Z A 4$ O Eastbound 516 % /� ` ' Westbound 1647 o�� 1 'Z0 � $1q ' 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 Fin;h F�rC55 C'en DATE: 8 f 193 ' PROJECT: ' MA5070AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTING[EXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI 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 I ]Capacitylcapacityl Volune I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL 1 16001 1 751 0.05 *-- IO IOD�� D.os 1----------------------•----------------•-----q------------------- . ------------------ I I NT 1 4800 1 1 1232 1 0.26 1146 ---11g5-----1--a.33 1 0 1 b.33 1 . .................... I MR 1 1600 1 1 9 1 0.01 1 1 1 0 1 0. 01 1 O 1 0.01 I -•--' ------- _- - -------- - -' -------------- ----' I SL 1 3200 1 1 211 1 0.07 125 1 (, 1 b.C, --I_.:p___I D.08 I --- I ST 1 3200 1 1 958 1 0.30 * I1,�___I29-5 ..__I.0•`I3A 1 0 1 0.9 I ' I -- I N.S. 1 I --- I 173 1 (09 _-_----------I-------I----.._I I EL 1 3200 1 1 81 I 0.03 * o I zo 1 0.03* 1 1 I b.o3 1 ' --- ---I--------i_..-....i--'- -------—-------`---------------------- - --- I ET 115 I0.03 ------------ ------- O.ON I- ----I-------- 4800 '-'--------------- I I I I 0 I 4'I I ER I 1 1 40I I0 10 1 I D I I -------------- - •--.. . -------' ---•----- ' I WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 10 1 0 I D.D l 1 O 10.01 1 I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WT 1 32001 1 2201 0.0710 13-Z 1 0. 06 1 3 10.081 -- --------------------- ' I WR 1 1600 ** 1 552 1 0.35 * I 6�3r 10.3 e "I U 10.38 I I----------------------------------------------•--------------------------------------------I 1 EXISTING I ---- 1 ______________________________ ' ]EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.__[_O.a { __.I---------------I I------------------------------------------------------------- - ----- I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.89 I ------------------------------------------------------.._.--_-- **Right turns only from single lane 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_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/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 1 -------------------------------•-------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II ' MA5070AM 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 993 PM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 2558 (p°'� 30 Z 3 Zy7 outhbound 4623 J� 708 .598b stbou sEa ndd 1825 6/)) z„5S' ?DOD �2 tWestbound 1121 co 1/ 8 3 J o'Z 1 7— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected �l 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 t ran Ay F3he-Z Cen-6- DATE: _ qJ PROJECT: MA5070PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD $ SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM _-----_-------_-------_-----____-------_-----_-------___._-------------____._____.___----.-__ IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTING]EXiSTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI ' IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL 1 1600 I 1 41 1 0.03 *S 1 7„ 1 b,0.3 -- .� 0.031 --------- ---...------ I NT 1 4800 I 1 1045 1 0.22 I12 '_1.191____1 D.-45" 1 D 1 D.2$ I --------------------------- ' I NR 1 1600 1 1 11 1 0.01 1 )------I- D- - 1 O.OI----I--D...1 0,01 1 --- I SL 1 3200 1 1 439 1 0.14 I irL 1 30 1 0.1 to I b I 0.l(P I .......................................... I ST I 3200 I ] 1291 I 0.40 *IS-S___129-6 --1- 0.5�l0 1 0 1 o.5H ILL SR I N.S. 1 1 348 1 1 y2 13a 1--------------------------••---------------------------------•-----------------------------I EL 1 3200 1 1 504 1 0.16 * 0 1 /bb I p,/q-* I I o. 6j I', -------------- --I----••--I-------------•---I••------ ---------------------I..------- -----I ET 297 _ 2l0 L' ' 1--------) 4800 ------------------) 0.07 -------------------__ ER 1 1 58 1 0 1 3 I p 1, I ' I WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 1 (> 1 0 1 0.of 1 0 10.a l I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I i wr I I 141 l0 I ?3 1- I & I I 1 3 4800 ) 0.08 * .._ A,,I ..._...._.. D,O� i ' I Wit I I --- I D I g I I p l I 1EXISTING 1 0.67 1 I I-•-•---------------------------•-•------------------------------------------ I 1EXIST +-REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I D. g3ff 1 I ' 1-------------------------------•---__--------.---------------------------------------------I ]EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I C),Bst __________________________•••--•---_-___________-__----_----------•-------------------------- ' 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_I 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 11 MA507OPM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MACARTHUR BL � (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 93 AM Peak 21� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 22 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound _D_ (on C) b p ' Southbound 1226 16�� }a'/ z(,D 1633 / to I Eastbound 2437 Z'�� Q r] / "' 97 ' Westbound 4788 2:� L. �(o / S ' 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 F-}wrs.9 C2vt�2(` DATE: In IR3 PROJECT: CH5335AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING--------------1993 AM ....................................................................... . IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI ' IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NT I I I I I I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I MR I I I I I I I I I I I-----------------------------•---------------------------------- _____...._ . ----I I SL 1 3200 1 1 298 1 0.09 * I I I I I ' I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------1 I ST I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------.-...--------------...--------------------------------------I I SR I N.S. 1 1 231 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I EL 1 3200 1 436 1 0.14 * I I I- 1 I _.-.._---- -------------I I ET 1 4800 1 1 675 1 0.14 1 1 1 1 I 1 ' I------------------------------------------------------------- I I ER I I I i I I I I I I I-------------------------------------,.------------------------------------------- I ' I -L I I I I I I I _____.----I I I I_..- - ._...I I WT 1 4800 1 1 1297 1 0.27 * I I I- I I .___._---- -------------I WR I N.S. I I --- l I I I I I I 1 1 I-------- I ---- ----------------•_------•----- 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 ' 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 inprovements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM II ' CH5335AM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring g93 PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound _0_ Lo% O Q O Q� Southbound 2342 1481 31 L? Eastbound 4111 2 f 3 top Westbound 3634 y) to,5 9 Z. Ro Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected X� Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ram��y F'�ru55 Ce✓ihx— DATEDATE: 8�IJ/93 ' PROJECT: I� CH5335PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 5335 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM ...........................................•--•..----....__._._....__..._.__...____........._ ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylespacityl 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 NL I I I I I I I I I I I----------------•---.__-•----_._---____.----------------•-------_--------._•----___....._--I I NT I I I I I I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NR I I I I I I I I I I I SL [ 3200 I I 827 I 0.26 • I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ST I I I I I I I I I I I SR I N.S.I [ 222I I I I I I I [------------------------------------------------------------- _____....._._I I EL I 3200 I I 307 I 0.10 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I -ET I 4800 I. I 1490 I 0.31 I I I I I I _. .--•---._.------•-•--------------------------------------'•--------------___.._._____._. ER I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I WL I I I I I I I I I I L__________________________________________________________________________________________I WT I 4800 I I 989 I 0.21 • I I I I I �•-- .--� _ _ _-____._i 437--"- i____..._i___.....i__.__.___i_._.______.i_______i_.. .__ NR H.S. I I ..............I [EXISTING ________________I 0.57 __ _I___._______..________.______--- IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .I.._________I_ ______ [EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I .------•--------•••--------- _ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ' I_I Project + project traffic I.C.U. is less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 CI 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 11 ' CH5335PM 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 3 ) AM ' Peak 2-� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2+* Hour Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 231 Hour Pe Peak 21, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1494 [3', C> 103 & Z ' South bound 1860 V 11Z r/91 2 f03 Z 8 Z Eastbound 5212 t Z0g Z (9, (�5 i 10 ' Westbound 2737 i, �D 3� ry✓ 1 ' �{l Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected V�I Peak 2 Z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 h+��J Rlnes5 Ole n�C(r DATE: ' PROJECT: CH505SAM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING _-_ __-__--__1993 AM ________________________________________________________________________ _.-_ EXISTING(PROPOSED IEXISTINGIEXISTIHG IREGIONAL(COMMITTED I PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI ' IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I lCapecityleapecityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I "" I-------------------------------------- ---------..."-----.."----------------------•••- I NL 1 16001 1 221 0.011 1 1 1 I 1 I-------------------...____I__----- --------- .____.--I__-----I---""I HT 1 ' -- -----3 3200 ---------------92) 0.20 i--------i---------I------•-----------------. .I SL 1 1600 1 1 89 1 0.06 * I I I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------I ' 1 ST 1 3200 1 1 222 1 0.07 1 1 1 1 1 1 SR I N.S. 1 1 5521 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I-"'----------------"""'-------------"""-_...-------..----------------------- -------I EL 1 4800 1 1 1047 1 0.22 * I I I I I ---ET--•-------- -------__ -------------- -----I 1442 t I-- -_) 6400 i--....._-- ) 0.23 i-__-_.-_i_-_--_--_i_--_-.-..__i_---.--i____--- ER 2 I i___________________________________________________________________________________________I i WL 1 32001 1 561 0.021 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 WT I 1 I 1 *--------------------------------------I I ---- --- ---- I WR I H.S. 1 1 -- I I I I I I I 1 EXISTING 1 ---- I - -•-- I ' 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 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 ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/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 ' CH5055AN 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pa ng g93 PM Peak 21� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 23, Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1076 3/ k ~ ' southbound 3975 3• . 07 07-1 7 Eastbound 4761 Igo loo (P00 ! ' Westbound 4062 2_. Z3 V Z Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Ism ly F,+he.5 &4&-r DATE: PROJECT: ' CH5055PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM ............................................................................................. IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI ' IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I Icapacity[capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Project[ I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I I ' I NL 1 16001 1 331 0.021 I 1 1 I 1 I----------------- 309 --------- I-------I I-------) 3200 0.12' -----I 67 SL 1 1600 1 1 ISO 1 0.09 • I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I ST 1 32001 1 5771 0.181 1 1 1 1 I - 1 SR I N.S. 1 1 12451 1 1 1 1 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I EL 1 4800 1 1 727 1 0.15 * I I I I 1 1 - ------- -----------I--------------------------I-----------------------------i------- ET I 1243 I--------) 6400 •----------- ) 0.20 i--------I---------I--------------------------- I ' 14 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WL 1 3200 1 1 149 1 0.05 1 1 1 1 1 I 1------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------I WT 1 6400 1 1 1551 1 0.24 • I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 571 1 1 1 ... 1 1 I --------------I (EXISTING [ 0.601 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 1 -----_-_.- ...............I --------------------'- -------- ------ '--------'-------' """----__..._.____'_..--'----..--- (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less then or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement Will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ' be less than I.C.U. without project ----- ---' Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 CH5055PM ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SANTA BARBARA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 93 AM ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 3790 3' ) 2,7- 4r7p #197 50 SouthboundA6 '8 , b lis U CD 0 Eastbound /• d �80 /SOWestboundU� 'L3S' 03 /7 Z. 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 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Far A j +e-(DATE: PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I (EXISTING IPROPOSED(EXISTING[EXISTING IREGIOHAL ICOMMITTED I PROJECTED [PROJECT I PROJECT IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylcopacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I 1 , 1 1 1 1 volume I I I I HL I I I I I I I I I I I--------------------------------------------•-----------------------------------------___-- NT [ ---- I [ ---- I OSZ _ ----•'I- -- -- -I' '- ----- ---- ---I- -----I ' I -' 1 --- -'- 1 ---- 1 1 MR I ---- I I --- I ---- I [ I I I I 1 - ------------------------1 •------I1 839------- 0.12I- ---- ---------i----------------------•-----_L___.._[-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I SR I I I I I I I I I I I--------------------•----------------------------------------------------------------------I I EL .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I----------------------------------------•----------------------------'"-------------------I I ET I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•-----I I ER I I I i I I I I I I I-----------------------•-------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I WL 1 2400 1 1 45 1 0.02 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WT I I I I I I I I I I ' I WR I 2400 I 1 131 1 0.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------------I I EXISTING i 0.46 1 ______________________________ ' IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I ._--------- -----I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' 1_I 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 1I ' JA5310AM t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SANTA BARBARA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 993 PM ' Peak 2J, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2., Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2737 �3f, 2$ 372 37 /2 r 4426 3� Z(o(p j Z (�121 (p O 0 rO/ $0 2013 C�J D Z5(pD Z�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. t 1 1 �/ / F,4s C%neseeTte r- DATE: g I y ' PROJECT: ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993PM_ ---"..................................................................-------------- - ' I IEXISTING IPROPOSED IEXISTINGIE%ISTING IREGIONALI COMMITTED[ PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I Volume I I ' I-------------____I"""•---I""----"•I___•----I-----'•-I--------'I-----"----""--"""•"------ I NL I I I i I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NT I 4800 I I 932 I 0.19 I I I I I I I-----•-----------"-----•-"-----"-""-----"'-----"--------------- __________ _------ --"-"--I NR I 1600 I I 153 I 0.10 I I I --________I _ I I _____________I SL I 3200I I 333I 0.10I I I I I I ST I 4800 I I 1852 I 0.39 * I I __..____._I_ I I I SR I I I I I I I I I I ' I_______•-"--••------"••--______--•-----"______________________""-"-"---- "----""-I I EL I I I I I I I I I I I ET I I I I I I I I I I ' I____---'""_____________________________________'___"--________"----_"'-----__________-----I I ER I I I I I I I I I I ___________________________________________________________________________________________I WL I 2400 I I 456 I 0.19 * I I I I I I'"•----______"--------"""•-__________-•--""•----••----------"'"-""'"•------".............I I WT I I I I I I I I I I ' I WR I 2400 I I 452 I 0.19 I I I I I I I-- i--'_______---__'..---'"..---___' I I_______.. ' ' (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. II I_______________________________ - __________- _-------- .-_.__ (EXISTING + COMMITTED + 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_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -"----•"-----------------••-----"----____---------"---- ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 ' JA5310PM 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN MIGUEL DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 92 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 19; of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 2971 (�� '7J� 3� 36 fp Southbound 2302 �*1/ 3 S 33 ' Eastbound 488 i estbound 627 j Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' y�l Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' Foun: F6ez deft, er- DATE G�If�93 PROJECT: FORM I MA7135AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING -------------1992 AM -----------------------------------------------------------------------' ----- li IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI 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 I (CapacitylCapacityl 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 1 1 132 1 0.08 * I I I I I 1 --- -----------I---------- ---- ------------------I---------I---------------------------I 1 1028 ' 1----- --) 3200 ----------------- ) 0.36 ----------------------------------------------I --------------------------------------- I I St. 1 16001 1 6 1 0.001 1 1 1 1 1 ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ST 1 1 560 --------) 3200 ------------------) 0.35 I--------I---------I-----------I---------------I ' 1 SR I I --- I I I I I I EL 1 3200 1 1 159 1 0.05 * I I I I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ET I I 65 I I I I I I I ER 1 1 22 I 1 1 1 I 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1 WL 1 16001 1 971 0.061 1 1 1 1 1 -----------------I-------------'&----------'.____---I-------------------------------------I I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.06 *----------------------------------------------I ' I -- I I 8 1 I I 1 I I 1EXISTING 1 0.54 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. II 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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be ' — less than or equal to 0.90 CI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 1I MA7135AM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN MIGUEL DR ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 32) pM Peak 2y Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume / Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1962 353 2z.1 253(0 2-6 17 Southbound 2743 q91 y5 (07IP i p ' Eastbound 2101 © 3-46 L Z Westbound 701 D D t Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 �v ��ness �PhTe/' DATE: Ifliv PROJECT: ' FORM I MA7135PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & SAN MIGUEL DRIVE 7135 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING •----•_----_-1992 PM ________________________________________________________________________ _______ ,i I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI ' IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapecitylCapacityl 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 50 1 0.03 " I I I I I I----------------- ----------------------i-------I 624 ' I------•) 3200 ------------------ ) 0.24 -----------------------------------------------I I 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------- ------•-I SL 1 16001 1 71 0.001 1 I 1 1 1 -•-- --- ---- ---------- -------------------- ST 1 1 ---- «---------- ' I SR I I I --- I 1--------------------1 I I EL 1 3200 1 1 549 1 0.17 * I I I I I I----------------------------------•--------------------------------------------------------I ' ET I 1 I 291 1 1 I --- ER 1 1 134 1 1 1 1 1 1 I--•-----------------'•-------•-------------•----------------------------•------------------I WL 1 16001 1 1061 0.07 1 1 I 1 1 -----------------I--------i------- ------------------•------------------•------------------I 120 I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.04 '--------I------''-----------------------------I ' I WR I I I I -- I ----------I I I (EXISTING 1 0.63 1 1 1•-----------------------•-----------••------••-___-------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I---------------------------------------•-----------------------___•------------------------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1_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 than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project .._.__.....-'..---'---.......-'-••......................•- 1 Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM It MA7135PM 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter p—Hng 92 AM 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 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 3684 ��•)\l Z )30 5.32K Q0 Southbound 3844 S4 1 Z7 Eastbound 758 too 0 b2 $ i 0 Westbound 783 0-1 0 / '' SRS ! & Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 1r� Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ricm Ffne55 C�q` DATE: V 1b ' PROJECT: FORM I ' JAS04SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM - -• IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECT) IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I ' I ICapacitylcepecity Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I -------------------- I HL 1 16001 1 331 0.02I I I 1 1 1 I NT I 4800 I 1 1527 I 0.32 * I I I I I - -- - ---- - - I -------- ----- I---NR---1---1600.I 1 91- --- 1 0.06- -------- --- •---I I I I I I 1•------------------------------------------------------------------------------------••----I SL 1 3200 1 1 565 1 0.18 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ST 1 4800 I I 1141 I 0.24 I I I I I I ISR 1600 22 0.01--- -------------------------------I----- I--------- -I•-------I----- I ----------------- ------------ --------IEL 269 I ---) 4800 ------------------) 0.06 ----------------------------------------------I I ET I I 41 I I I I I I I - --i-•- -i--'-----i__'". -i--------i-------'i-.....___i_---------- ._..-'i-'----- ER N.S. 53 1 I -------------------------- -----------------------------------------------IWL 74 I ) 4800 ------------------) 0.02 •-----------------------__..._.--------------- I WT I I 11 I I I ----------I 1 ---•----- I WR I N.S. 1 1 266I I 1 I I 1 I-----------------------------------------•-------------------------------------...._-------I 1EXISTING 1 0.58 1 I ' 1---•------------------------------------------------------------------------ I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 I I IEXiSTING + 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 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems improvement Will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM lI ' JAS04SAM ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92) J?M Peak 2� Hour Approved t Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2>, Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2+ Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume ' Northbound 3401 bi b fib` 91pfJ o 0 southbound 5055 C30 1/" I (e rlloLo ~f 2a ' Eastbound 414 LOA fl 12(P y�}0 i 0 L Westbound 15511 Lof 1N I"70ZIll` 1`l ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. � Jv R+Ye-55 deol4/- DATE: 8'1f�93 ' PROJECT: FORM I I ' JA5045PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD & SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC-- WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM.-_-_______-•. - - .- _ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio ]Volume I V/C I IcapacityI I I Capacity Volume Ratio I I Volume Volume IV l I I Project Ratio I NL I 1600 I I 89 I 0.06 « I I I I I ..__.'-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I NT I 4800 I I 1198 I 0.25 I I I I I I I I MR I ---- I I 94 I ---- I I I I I I St. I 3200 I I 453 I 0.14 I I I I I I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ST I 4800 I I 1737 I 0.36 • I I I I I - I SR I 1600 I ( 151 I 0.09 I I I I II I---------------------- ----------________._i...------------------.----------------i.___-.-I ' I--------) 4800 -------------- ) 0.02 I--------I---------I---------------------..---- 28 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ER I N.S. I I 63I I I I I I I ' I--. _------_.__i--------------- ---------i----_-__i I.-______----_•_ _•----i.-._-__I -L I-------) 4800 i--------------60) 0.05 i--------I--------'I'--------------------__.---I ._..-."-------'-----------------I--------I--------- ----------- I (EXISTING I 0.49 I I I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I i I--------------------------'...---------"'-------------""--------------------------------I IEXISTING + 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 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ' Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 ' JA5045PH ' ACE TRAFFIC SURVEYS ' CITY: NEWPORT BEACH, CA ' LOCATION: 600 NEWPORT BLVD - PARKING GARAGE DATE: 8/3/93 INVOICE NO.: 219 ' �=.`b a•�<\K'N A�'�`• i.X'..\+�-RC+h.N�. e5.>beFS" \A'• w..e'+iY.�ZiN\�Z`f N• •K�.•n'+IrI� I.�1✓�JY�wJ III n u a u u u u u u u 7:00 AM 11 !! 5 811 25 27 u 1 Oil 1 0!1 1 7:30 AM 15 11 16 ij 44 35 ij 6 111 11 Oil 2 8:00 AM 23 :1 10 1911 51 4311 11 2 1: 2 Oil '2 8:30 AM 42 11 13 41 j 65 58 n 26 9'j 3 0 j 1 9:00 AM 43 a 21 5511 69 6811 50 11 u 7 0 ll 1 ' If 9:30 AM sill 22 58 ri 72 72:'1 87 1311 9 Oil 0 10.00 AM 63 a 34 7611 73 82 n 122 14!! 12 0!! 0 ' 10:30 AM 63 j: 36 74 1': 73 73 '11' 120 1611 11 Ott 0 11:00 AM 54!! 34 75:1 71 7611 121 12 1! 13 0 u 0 11:30 AM 5811 38 73 ij 72 75 n 127 13 a 13 0 jj 0 12:00 NOON 55 a 39 7011 70 74 n 115 1311 12 0!! _ 0 12:30 PM 57 n 40 68 n 71 73 If 104 14 it 12 0 It 0 1:00 PM 56 a 42 62 69 73 It 97 1411 11 Oil 0 It 11 1:30 PM 5711 45 66° 68 7211 100 1211 12 Oil 0 ' 2:00 PM 5811 49 70:1 67 70 11 104 1311 9 Oil 0 2:30 PM 60 ij 47 75 n 60 75° 102 12° 12 Oil 0 11 11 It 11 11 3:00 PM 59 a 48 73 !1 62 74 H 102 1311 10 Oil 0 3:30 PM 57 a 46 74 n 60 72° 100 13 n 11 Oil 0 ' 4:00 PM 55!1 44 5411 58 67�� 104 14 a 11 0�� 0 4:30 PM 54 a 41 50° 57 64 ri 98 1211 10 Oil 0 It u It 11 it ' 5:00 PM 34!! 39 49 a 55 45 a 96 11 :1 10 01, 0 5:30 PM 30 1': 28 28'11' 28 22 a 50 10 i'1 6 0 i 0 u u i t u 6:00 PM 3011 20 15!! 15 11 11 42 7 1! 4 0 n 0 6:30PM 24° 12 11is n 61 7ri 251 611 3 0ri 0 ' 7:00PM 19u 8 9�� 4 7u 19 3 �� 3 0u 0 ACE TRAFFIC SURVEYS CITY: Los Alamitos, CA LOCATION: Family Fitness Center ' Katella Blvd DATE: 8/9/93 ' INVOICE NO.: 219 ' AuSuse 9, 1993 Monday Numbeeo£Vebicles Puked ' TIME OA-Site Parklftg off-S1to Parking TOTAL ' :00 AM 21 1 22 -30 AM 34 4 38 :00 AM 54 6 60 ' :30 AM 57 6 63 :00 AM 44 7 51 :30 AM 29 8 37 10:00 AM 36 9 45 10:30 AM 37 9 46 11:00 AM 39 9 48 ' 11:30 AM 25 7 32 12:00 NOON 23 8 31 12:30 PM 33 8 41 1:00 PM 36 9 45 1:30 PM 24 6 1 30 ' :00 PM 22 6 28 :30 PM 17 7 24 :00 PM 18 4 22 :30 PM 16 12 28 ' :00 PM 23 15 38 :30 PM 43 20 63 :00 PM 53 45 98 :30 PM 56 55 111 :00 PM 52 54 106 ' :30 PM 56 53 109 :00 PM 54 48 102 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rr r r� CHART 1 EXISTING PARKING DEMAND Los Alamitos Family Fitness Center 500 Peak &6$0 Newport tre k cture —i 450 400 a 350 o 0 300 v 0 250 N 200 Peak\ z 150 100 y 50 f I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O QO n O M O M O M O r2 O M d12 O M O M O M O M O M d O n W O] O) Ol O O ^ ^ N N 00 n Time of Day • Existing Family Fitness o 600 Newport Structure CHART 2 Existing Family Fitness Center Parking Rate Los Alamitos, California 7 Monday August 9, 1993 6. S. (6.17 spacelsl,000 SF) 04. s a 3. 2. Sol1. Time of Day CHART 3 TOTAL PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY 1200 1000 �—Existing Structure 800 ❑ Proposed Family Fitness d —4 Unoccupied Office U C) Total Demand N N V to 600 —A—Existing Supply `o d n E z 400 200 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o QO M O r? O M O M O M O M dn O n O M O M O M O r7 d O r- C!J N Oi O O N N 00 - cV M M V � � � ( [D 00 rzz Time of Day