Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TS092
COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES "O`00 '�GtOf`s1G�dt��rs c� �o0tJp°�o�'Poo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 15. at the project shall be so designed to eliminate light and gla spillage on adjacent streets and uses. 16. That no door loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in 'unction with the proposed operation. 17. That the hours of ope ion of the mini-storage facility shall be limited between the s of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 18. That all conditions of approval o endment No. 790,and Traffic Study No. 91 and related mita tion measures of the environmental document shall be fulfil 19. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unle exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as spe ' ed in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal e. A. Site Plan Review No. 32 Amended (Public Hearin Item No.3 Request to amend a previously approved Site Plan Review which SPR 32(A) permitted the construction of the 325 room Four Seasons Hotel in TS 92 Newport Center. The proposal also included: the establishment of an off-street parking requirement based upon a demonstrated Approved ormula; the acceptance of two off-site parking agreements; and a odification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact ar spaces, tandem parking spaces with valet service and two versized wall signs. The proposed amendment includes a request o construct a 9,000± sq. ft. ballroom/banquet facility with ncillary uses to include a kitchen, restrooms, storage and pre- nction areas. A 3,600± sq.ft. lawn area for various functions is lso proposed; an additional off-site parking agreement for the equired parking spaces in an adjoining parking structure located t 630 Newport Center Drive; and the acceptance of an nvironmental document. AND -12- COMMSSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \ January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX B. Traffic Study No. 92 Public Hearinel Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of a 9,000± square foot ballroom/banquet facility with ancillary uses to include a kitchen, restrooms, a storage area, pre-function areas, and a 3,600± sq.ft. lawn area to be used for outdoor functions. LOCATION: Parcels 1,2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 19/13-15, (Resubdivision No. 752) located at 690 Newport Center Drive, on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF-H APPLICANT: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Edwards requested that James Hewicker, Planning Director, clarify the suggested changes to conditions of approval for Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended), that were distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing. Mr. Hewicker addressed suggested revised Condition No. 5 regarding the off-site parking agreement. He explained that the suggested condition would allow the applicant to obtain the City CounciPs approval of an off-site parking agreement within 120 days of the issuance of the first building permit for the proposed hotel expansion. Mr.Hewicker recommended that original Condition No. 13 stating That prior to occupancy, the applicant shall deposit $50,000.00 owards the cost of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of ewport Center Drive and Center Drive, be deleted. The suggested new condition states That the collection of Fair Share Traffic Contribution fees for the use of the lawn area adjacent to the -13- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES �Ao ��lOr��d�dfS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \ January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX roposed ballroom shall be deferred by the City pending the cheduling of the first use of this area for an outdoor event. Mr. ewicker explained the applicant and staff discussed the Fair bare Fee contribution for the lawn area, and the applicant dicated that it was not certain that the lawn would be used for utdoor functions. It was determined that the collection of the Fair Share Fee would be postponed until after the first event had een scheduled. uggested revised Condition No. 15 addresses advertising in the us shelter located on private property adjacent to the hotel on ewport Center Drive, and the condition would allow advertising ,vithin Newport Center and Fashion Island. uggested revised Condition No. 18 addresses the expiration of the roposed Site Plan Review. The Irvine Company requested that e condition be modified to allow for a 36 month period. response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover regarding he aforementioned Condition No. 13, Mr. Hewicker explained hat if a traffic signal is installed at the intersection of Newport enter Drive and Center Drive, it would be installed at the City's xpense. Mr. Hewicker further replied that the Fair Share Traffic ontribution fee is based on the cost per trip and the number of rips. e public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and r. Tom Redwitz appeared before the Planning Commission on ehalf of the applicant. He concurred with the findings and onditions in Exhibit "A" as revised by staff. The proposal would ncrease the occupancy rate of the hotel up to approximately 0,000 room nights per year, and it would increase the bed tax to he City to approximately $150,000 per year and it would also ncrease the sales tax to approximately $30,000 per year. response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway egarding the disparity of the aforementioned suggested Conditions o. 5 and No. 18, Mr. Redwitz and Mr. Bill Dunlap, Vice -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES c� �ot�Jp°��oso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX President of Development for The Irvine Company explained that the economic investment will be considered after The Irvine Company reviews the conditions on the approval, and the bids that will be submitted on the proposed project. Commissioner Glover suggested a pathway be constructed between the Hotel and Neiman Marcus. Mr. Redwitz replied that the suggestion would be reviewed and he indicated that the Hotel's expansion would affect the sales tax revenue throughout the City. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the original Condition No. 13 and the suggested Condition No. 13,Mr.Hewicker replied that the$50,000.00 for the installation of a traffic signal would not have been included in the Fair Share Fee. If it is ultimately determined that the Hotel would use the lawn area for functional purposes in conjunction with the ballroom the Fair Share Fee will be collected. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards with regard to the traffic signal at Newport Center Drive and Center Drive, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that it is not normally City policy to construct traffic signals at private driveways inasmuch as it is the property owner's responsibility if it is required at the time of the original development. The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that the intersection does not meet normal traffic signal warrants that are established by the State of California. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Webb replied that members of the public in the general vicinity requested that the City install a traffic signal at the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Center Drive; however, the City Council will determine if the use of public funds is on their priority list to install a traffic signal at the intersection. -15- COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES Ao •�4'l�'rt+dd dr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards,Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that when a condition is imposed on a development it is necessary to indicate that there is a nexus between the impacts caused by the development. It was determined that the development would not impact the intersection to the extent that a traffic signal would be required. Mr. Webb explained that when the Four Seasons Hotel was originally approved a traffic signal was originally conditioned at that location if traffic signal warrants were met within five years. The warrants were not met within five years and so the bonds were released. Motion Motion was made and voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. 32(Amended) and Traffic Study No. 92 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit"A", as revised. Commissioner Glover stated All Ayes that it has been determined that there is not a nexus and that the City should pay for the traffic signal if it is necessary. MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and imposing the following mitigation measures: Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. -16- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES �y�ot ��ooso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL MEX 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 2. Use of the function lawn area shall be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. weekdays, until such time as the northbound Jamboree Road on-ramp to the SR-73 is constructed. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. -17- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX B. Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amendedl Findims: 1. That development of the subject property will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk,inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. S. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 6. That there are no unique site characteristics or environmentally sensitive areas on-site which should be protected. 7. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. -18- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES c� �ot �°�ooso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 8. The development is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. 9. That there are no archeological or historical resources on-- site. 10. 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. 11. That public improvements may be required of the applicant per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 12. The project will substantially comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 13. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 14. That the proposed off-site parking area is so located as to be useful in conjunction with the proposed ballroom and function lawn. 15. That the parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 16. That the off-site parking lot and the building site are in the same ownership, and the owner is entitled to the immediate possession and use thereof. 17. That the owner and the City, upon the approval of City Council, will execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, -19- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES '�AO ��lOf��dlDrS o`� �ot�`R�o�Poo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX providing for the maintenance of the required off-street parking on such lot for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site. Such instruments will be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Development. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Site Plan Review No. 32, Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) as approved on December 6, 1984 and August 8, 1991 and Use Permit No. 3119 shall be fulfilled. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the applicant shall obtain the City Council's approval of an off-site parking arrangement which provides for 270 parking spaces within the parking structure located at 630 Newport Center Drive within 120 days of the issuance of the first building permit for the proposed hotel expansion. 6. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the off-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self-parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 7. That the intersection of the private street and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles -20- COMMSSIONERS • • MINUTES o� �ot �°i'000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \\ January 6 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. 8. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Public Streets and adjoining properties. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 10. That the Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 12. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall deposit $100,000.00 for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Cruz Drive and San Clemente Drive/Center Drive. 13. That the collection of Fair Share Traffic Contribution fees for the use of the lawn area adjacent to the proposed ballroom shall be deferred by the City pending the scheduling of the first use of this area for an outdoor event. 14. That the bus shelter on San Joaquin Hills Road east of Santa Cruz Drive shall be removed. (No buses travel this section of San Joaquin Hills Road.) -21- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES AO rL, (,10 r�L�'drL�r�S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 15. Advertising in the bus shelter adjacent to the hotel, on Newport Center Drive, shall be restricted to businesses located within Newport Center and Fashion Island. 16. Unless otherwise approved, a parking plan showing the tandem and compact spaces and the valet operation area shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review. 17. That the condition of Traffic Study No. 92 shall be fulfilled. 18. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 36 months from the date of approval. C. Traffic Study No. 92: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary-modified', or 'primary' street. Condition: 1. Use of the outdoor function area shall be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. weekdays until such time as the northbound Jamboree Road on-ramp to the SR-73 is constructed. x x -22- n r rM ' riC1OMtv1ISSIONW48 s . � ity-.ONNewport'Beach � } � :S'y n�GZk`� ;.,:.. art.!:, 5•�' ;•�4. _ t ` November 18 1976 3" CALL J' }smog Ia iaa GA" 1. That the parking demand in Block 600 is X { significantly less than the parking required by the existing ordinances. 2. That adequate parking for all of the uses I- \ in Block 600 rill be provided with the pro- + posed reductions in the parking requirements. 3. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1805 will not, under the circumstances of this ease, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, " comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental to property or improvements in . the neighborhood or the general welfare of , the City. ; n and approve Use Permit No. 1805, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the parking requirement for that ortion ; Of the office uses included in the pool park- ing be based on one space for each 376 square ,t feet of net floor area. Prior to the con- struction of any future major structure in Black 600, the staff shall review this standard and determine if it is still valid. If, at that time, the staff determines that additional adjustments to the formula are required, the matter shall be referred to the 1 Planning Commission. 2. That a maximum of 25% of the parking spaces in the structure be restriped for compact cars. The dimensions of a compact stall shall be 7.5' X 15' . The applicant shall be responsible for continued monitoring and r enforcement of the use of the spaces. 3. That the daytime parking requirement for the restaurant in parking structure A shall, ,} subject to approval of a joint use agreement by the City Council , be reduced to 50% of the full requirement. If the operational characteristics of this restaurant are changed, a new parking requirement shall be established as part of the Use Permit for the new restaurant. p Motior 4. That the parking requirement for the restau- t'All Ay rant in parking structure B shall be ; r ,1• ' ��.� � y.5p,�� .a � :Page 8.._,..,:.]�. s w„iF',-,et.: ',*:`:�. 7{a �'�ex'SChiyi'+� �.+e�rrfiriq`•-'n4t•`.5�"I�J'IASJ�P:{lti��'.'�36iY'�' �� .., Y•r V T I 6 {I F s l E { i , a ' •C (NMISSIONE S iG Y r :+ a' !` •=�t\��Novembers.i8i •1976 `;';• ,. r{;a:�;-;: , MOLL CALL - i!. ^l3' 'i•r ��INO b •� Item 1+ Request to establish a parking formula for a U3SEEIT} $~ parking pool of more than 1500 cars in Block 600. Alt E to authorize the use of 251 compact spaces, and fiO-TBO i f to authorize the use of shared parking for the APPROVE restaurants in the parking structures. J y., Locatton: Lot 22, Tract No. 6015, located at:. 600 and 630 Newport Center Drive. ' : northerly of Newport Center Drive .. 1 e between Santa Rosa Drive and Santa - j Cruz Drive in Block 600 of Newport , Center. ; �. Zone: C-O-H t f Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ". Owner: Same as Applicant Staff reviewed this matter with the Commission•.. a and answered questions relative to existing parking and the effect of this request on future development in Block 600. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. p Ron Hendrickson, Commercial Division, The Irvine y• Company, appeared before the Commission to commen on the request and concurred with the recommenda- tions contained in the staff report. Commissioner Agee commented on problems with the parking l'ot adjacent to the United California 1 Bank and felt that something should be done to provide a better layout for short-time parking. Mr. Hendrickson advised they would look into the n g�33 situation and see what could be done. He also ?fig answered questions relative to compact space r r identification. nu; There being no others desiring to appear and be a heard, the public hearing was closed. -• <;• liotton X Motion was made that Planning Commission make;the + 'All Ayes following findings: Yi . �. .Y P.� q..`^,. "•ice ' age;7•.:. : _ Mr.: �y/ ti .(y. ii .uSlc �` `�:a'ci1=•>.•J'�'`•��;}, •' - - u'$n.,i:,:-.3'�F- .;✓',tR.• "'{� `'lT'� M� ]14�• �.W •ri s�••y'` .y.a.E6'S T � } I , CQMN11ffION�laf .,.wtyr.of ewport: Beac f `' NOYeaberlllr '7JEri . .* i �' atiot.s owls ���' x �,°6 iF :..5 :a Ia1Nia established as part of use Pokit No. 40, 1,Or r any subsequent use perait. a . s e Meet i3. S ; ReVvest to change the opperational characteristics i and expand the not pub it ara• of the former$ t fi old Chicago Gas tighter Restaurant se AS to -x establish Picassios a discotAegw with reeordei ausic, to the exist;ng facility. 4, ; Location: Parcel No. 3 of Parcel Not 24.141 (Resubdivisios No. 270 tocated`At 30•9 Newport Coster Drive, Oorth•' arty of Newport Coster Orive ►etwee Santa Rosa Drive sad Santa Cret6 ,` Drive. in Stock 400 Of Newport Center. IoPtt C-0.11 A Applicant 00hohis R. lotion. Jr., N.D.a Newport leach Owners V e Irvine Cofpany, Newport 1 4"C Public hearing we opened in connection with this s matter. r Johnnis Batson. 1311 G axle Crive, appeared before the Commission an concurred with the $c staff report and recommen Lions. Me answered ' ouestiona of the COmmisai0n slative t0 future he ec ' operation and intent ofmthe dt oOthequiroposed ' Ed Epstein appeared before the Co issfon to r. answer questions and review the lay t as to location of the service bar and kite n area containing a sink, refrigerator, and p paration table. There being no others desiring to appear an be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion Motion was made that Planning Commission make.' 1 All Ayes the following findings: ,}i' • Page 9. .. at�rllr• h: y1 �^.y1• T"y'.:4j 2.IY. .��:' rf ':1-. :��. I/.Y��4T li/)riill L�'.�•IY.'�''�'ti +��: 1iL'�( •t 4 Co"Ission Mae Lint ho__•_.=°� "'= z ItsM No. CITT OF NEWPORT OEACH r•. M November 129 1976 • ^ +, Planning COMMISSION TO, Develop"" FROM. OM: Department of Community SUBJECT: use P nit No 1505 (/u011e N a Request arki to establish a parking fonrla fort SUMP poola t oore5than 1500pact car S� alnd to authorise the a use of shared parking for the restatraats iN the park* ing Structures. located LOCATION: Lot 22, Tract No. 60150 of Newport at Cen$00ter erd Dri$30ve Newport Center Drive, 00ranorlYeti CroioDrivve INrllock 600tof N Newport Center- ZONE: C-O-H in: CoMpaaY. Newport Beach APPLICANT: The Iry Same as ApPltcaat OWNER: +y � Ba k r0un Section 20.30.035 (c) of the municipal code establlottgbased08 �b0 ; .: Scats for parking requirements for officedevelopments f ; aces in the parities PC Cowneil " ,• number of Spaces in March and April* I/76. the /laanla1 CoichamendedPthisOrdinance the park- reviewed •nd adopted Amendment No. 46 "kith amended this Ord ht Not to Permit the planning Commission to agmore• Y ing formula for parking Pools based oa more thaN 425.000 fq. net floor area. , Tn16 application requests the modtflcaddit of the parkins formula Y K for Block 600OfNofpthe usetOf*CompactdurosPeeei Mad shared requests approval �. parking for the two restaurants located to flock 600. follows: ` Section 20.70.035 (c) reads aS i dl d ° er ift a Parkin Re uir m n y g vv 20�30.0 5nte)et2)ritynb* iod1f1e0ctabaccordance wlthetbelfolled owt�g on f schadults ft.. parkta9 Shall be provided c ` 1• Forothesfirstp1260000ter q • ft. of not fllcar arts• ne pace 2. For the nest 300.000 sy. ft•, at floor tare be provided at one tPeee per 300 SR. it• of nit floor area. 3, Any additional floor areas parking shall be provided at one S space Per 350 aq. it. of net floor area. of net floor c 00 $1q' fill la Core th on ■+Y modifY the parking forma For pools based on more than 4may area, the Planning demonstrated formula. by Use Permit, based on a dtmon EttM No. 2..... s-, t t TO. `nniNg COMMISSION • •2, „- • 4r• 4 Envlro"Wental Significance =.� • This application is based on actual parking counts aed is` deiigned to eliminate surplus parking spaces. The Preposed formuisias modlfled below would provide adequate parking for the actual parking demand. Therefore, approval of this application Mill got have a.y',519eificant F environmental impact, 4 " •. Analysis of Formes ' ,10stiN Psrki j •:. 9 Ng.=;The staff has prepared the fo11oY1R� sueMa 1ry { �.Y'•-Of tho existing parking sltvationt ,., •;� r ••�;. "? Total Spaces Available •'d - a 1 rky : 3• Parking Structure 11 { ' � 1.11a Parking Structure /2 -; 1o32s Union BaNk Court ;.a$�•,; ,Q Crocker lank Court . 16`" ; UCB A sasitghter Rostaurist 4t s :.' 60 _ Malls largo Court .f 'l Y a'� K-..•.12*T'j `fa, y`. AVCO Moment Total Met � Total Parking Requirement Union lank t66 ,'"• AYCO its t Yells Fargo Us Total Office 21501 • Commercial and ., Restaurosts 167 f.. Total tell$ ; r The available parking is therefore less than the required parking for the development. This is because the Yetis Fargo building is not yet fully occupied. The lrwine Company is required to provide the additional spaces at the time the building reaches 75% occupancy. & 2. Actual Use of the Parking Structures. r Cars entering and leaving the s,ructures are automatically counted. Therefore, The Irvine Company has daily records of the actual usage of the structures. This information is summarized below: ` Parking Structure 11 Number of Spaces lolls Present legal requirement 952a • Peak number of spaces utilized 660 *This requirement includes 670 spaces for the Union lank Building an 82 spaces for the restaurant and commercial uses in the structure. At this time all of the parkfai for the AYCO building F Is assigned to parking structure /2. At te time that the. Yalls Fargpo Building approaches full occupancy 166 cars from the ATCO building will be assigned to structure #L Parking Structure 12 Number of Spaces 1,326 Present legal requirement 1o021ee Peak number of Spates utilized 760 aalhis requirement includes 690 spaces for AVCOo 296 sPsees for �: . Yells faro (359 occupied)o and SS.spaces for the restaurant and commercis� uses in the parking structure,• "(lhare Is•a surface TO: P ing•Comission 3. ; lot adjacent to the restaurant which provides the resiafa y., r. SO spaces for the commerciai.) The re uire�ent for Ma)ls largo wIII Increase as the building is occupied. from this analysis]j it can be seen that Parking Structure 1i is used at at1I (ofepresentglegal requirement) Structure /2 r 1 Thor* appears to be a number of reasons for the low usage of the structures. these include: ? = a. Increased use of public transit end ca,r-pooling. This may be the result of Project indapandence which is the on going program which hen been established br;theF Newport Center and Fashion Island AssoclatlanS 10 help coordinate OCTO bus Hostess and car pool organizations. tit iy� b. The office.ber of employees who are frequently out:Of the c. The number of visitors appears to be proportionately smaller than would be expected In low rise buildings. i 3. Conclusion. There appears to be sefficleatlevidence to��tupport a reduction In the parking requirement for Block 600. the+applicant has requested that-the new Formula be established at ONetspact per 400 sq. ft. (see attached material). However the staffs after reviewing the material submitted by the applicantilhas S concluded that a more conservative reduction would be awe appropriate at this time. Therefore, the staff recommends that the new formula be established at one space for each 316 sq. ft. of net floor area. This would result In a total reduction of approximately iSS in the Iola) requirement while the actual counts indlcste a surplus or approximately 26.301. Compact Car Spaces y; Section 20.81.020 of the Municipal Code provides that the Modification f+ Committee may approve modification$ to the size of parking spans. By implication, the Planning Commission would alto have this authority. In the past the staff has presented a number of studies on compact cars to the Planning Commission. Thane studies have consistently indicated that a significant number of cars on the road are compacts. The attached material contains a recent study of compact cars usage In Newport Center which Indicates that more than 401 of all cars parked in Newport Center are compacts. n while the Planning Commission has concurred with the fact that there are many Compacts In Uses it has been concerned with a number of related problems. particularly with the problem of enforcement. About a year ago The Irvine Company restriped portions of the structures fir compact cars on on experimental basis. Both the Company and the ,F• CiR have monitored these spaces and have found that they have been watt used. The s U ff is of the opinion that 26% compact spaces is reasonable and that the spaces can be easily monitored t-id controlled within the parking structures. Restaurant Parking The two restaurants within the parking structures are in unique locations. Clearly there is adequate parking after peak office hours. Furthermora, i Block 600, andhthennoonrhournisfnottanpeak ttieiforcoffice pars rking Therefore, the applicant has requested a reduction of 50% of the u11 ' parking requirement on the basis of the shared parking and the overlap of peak hour usage. The Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may approva a reduction of parking when a building site is subject to two or more uses and Item No.2••• ••i' .j:• '1•i . •.+.-,p• a• - .yp�,s rY w..ri+. 'v, 'i: p• r•l` \` , a� TO: Planning .Commi on *4. -*th'e maximum parking requirements for-su'ch.,Useil: n I 'OCCU u"tana ousliI y. The restaurant in parking structure A, JApadena�!--41 1 1'*1 :reqUlAry res ta u- eY rant with full lunch and dinner serif ice. However, at the- hour, the demand for visitor parking for the adjacent higkpaak-noon rise- Is relatively low and at the peak dinner hour, all of the visitor 'parking area in the structure is available. Therefore,..the staff. feels that 50% Joint use is Justified. The restaurant in parking structure B is proposed to be.remodelled into a discotheque (see Use Permit No 1808, Item 3 'on the evenings agenda. While the remodelling will Ncrease the occupant load,.of the restaurant, the nature of the new operation-indicates that'At will be predominantly a nighttime operation. If the discotheque does open during normal working hours, the staff is of the opinion that the use will be light and that adequate parkin? is available in the visitor section of the parking structure as well as in the adjacent surface lot. However, the parking for the discotheque will be established as part of Use Permit No. 1808 and therefore the staff recommends that no action be taken as part of this use permit. Summary and Recommendation Studies conducted by The Irvine Company and the staff indicate that the parking demand being generated by the uses in Block 600 is considerably below that anticipated by 'the standard Pool parking formula. Therefore a reduction in the overall formula appear.s �to be Justified. In addition, recent studies including the one attichad to thW-report, 051N indicate a significant number Of COMPSCt cars in use today;t;�Jh'i parking structures, because they are patrolled and monitoreVby-the - operators, provide an ideal situation for the use of compact spaces. Finally, the peak hours of the offices !and the restaurants do'�'not conflict particularly with respect to the Use Of the Visitor Parking areas. Therefore approval of a joint-Use agreement appears to be warranted. Therefore the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following findings: 1. That the parking demand in Block 600 Is significantly less than the parking required by the existing ordinances. :. 2. That adequate parking for all of the uses In Block 600 will 'be provided with the proposed reductions in the parking requirements. 3. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1805 will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental to property or Improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. and staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the parking requirement for that portion of the office uses ir-.luded In the pool parking be based on one space for each 375 square feet of net floor area. Prior to the construction o of any future major structure in Block 600, the staff shall raVia this his standard and determine If It Is still valid. If, at that time, the staff determines that additional adjustments to the formula are required, the matter shall be referred to the Planning COmmis- sion. 2. That a maximum of 251 of the parking spaces in the structure be restripad for compact cars. The dimensions Of a COMPACt stall shall he 7.51 X 161. The applicant shall be responsible for * continued monitoring and enforcement of the use of the spaces. Item No..2x,;. i' t a { r � ;�•_ ':•�TO:`;�"`� " • • Plan'nfny'f-ConMfssion�T-'•� 5�;>�� ��;�{' .--!y 3:` 'That the daytime parkin gy requlrostht for.tN!' reitauran6 1n'�;'. : : ,. i. ., parking structure A•shail, subject}to-approral:ot:Yfiolnt;''Use•. agreement by the City.Council,:be reduced$tot60x ofsthtXu11 " .. Ez' requirement. If the operational; chareeteristics`eof=thts restaurant are changed, a new parking•requiras:ent shallise',11 l established as part of the Use Permit for Lhe new restaurant. 4. That the parking requirement for the rtstiarsnt�ln parking structure 8 sha11 be astablished as part ofM a Permit No. 1808 S P or any subsequent use permit. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR J ea: o ey. Environmental Coordinator r MRF/sh Attachments: Plot Plan Block 600 _�•. "° Applfe+nt's summary of Oarking �• Report fras parking consultant Photnt of parking structures t / •1 i ' yrfA• M•• 'fl h t• .4I ^Ir 1 A• YC •`•:V. .Y Ja•.. ` 4 4 �y1 J io 4N C+`i { yYr- t•F. e'er .y . .jyjJ•• a le V.•• • }'2T T •Krt' i t N.RNNidx ��+• y�• R ,F:1•";;1 D-22-7c, 11.11,ilyhi ,;ifl v..12 a ' .i .1i.";''•' y Iy ` a: is rr:'7k;/�i -� y' �! y7 ,/•�•ie: ek• •�^." , t e A".:.t' <,' 1 '� BLOC 600':PARKING'STRUCTURE t <anYY.•PARKING•ANALYSIS: ?d't`•: •` yT ��y 5 ' ` �", . "{p ."Win.'.•' i-.:'¢14it�.r..• • ',;.;' ... '.,•.!:..•�•� ��`��,,. �, :, F NET FLR'AREA OF BLDG;` LEASED OCCUPIED•- ';, rj}`* ` •Y ASSIGNED TO.PARKING.; MAY 1976 STRUCTURE FLOOR AREA , �!i 1 BUILDING Union Bank 269,310 .96 255,845 4 yr- • AYCO 225,609 .99 223,353 Wells Fargo 261,850 .40 104,740 s�rr;4 r Come, Structure /1 9.650 IN 9,650 Restaurant Str. fl 3,250 100 3,250 r' •1r •t Come. Structure !2 71000 1DO 7+000w~ Resturant Str. /2 1,7504 100 1.750 778'419 605,588 .r Peak parking demand *150�0 : 605.6 • 2.48 spaces/M ■ r�. , . .., *peak count in May 76 1 space/403 S.F ;: at full occupancy, required spaces would be �+•- 778 419 1931 spaces 46 . Total available structure pool spans r, Structure e 1 Ilia Structure 12 1326 AYCO Basement 49 !' Z. 2493 spaces I 2493 less 1931 662 surplus spaces Propose that C.U.P. be based on a change to one parking space for each 40D s.f. of office space. ♦♦♦ wh w U.S• .. � t ♦ •z-i .• `y r. � •L 'T,c',��•if`•iY;-;; ✓L: ty,.. :y`,',•, yk'•',�by .•�.. :I-'d n�� C 0 Planning Commission Meeting January 6.1993 Agenda Item No. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO. Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Site Plan Review No 32 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Request to amend a previously approved Site Plan Review which permitted the construction of the 325 room Four Seasons Hotel in Newport Center. The proposal also included: the establishment of an off-street parking requirement based upon a demonstrated'formula;the acceptance of two off-site parking agreements; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces, tandem parking spaces with valet service and two oversized wall signs. The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a 9,000± sq. ft. ballroom/banquet facility with ancillary uses to include a kitchen, restrooms, storage and pre-function areas. A 3,600± sq.ft. lawn area for various functions is also proposed; an additional off-site parking arrangement for the required parking spaces in an adjoining parking structure located at 630 Newport Center Drive; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study No. 92 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of a 9,000-± square foot ballroom/banquet facility with ancillary uses to include a kitchen, restrooms, a storage area, pre-function areas, and a 3,600± sq.ft. lawn area to be used for outdoor functions. LOCATION: Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 19/13-15, (Resubdivision No. 752) located at 690 Newport Center Drive, on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. ZONE: APF-H APPLICANT. The Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant 0 w TO: Planning Commission - 2. Applications This is a request to amend a previously approved Site Plan Review which permitted the construction of the 325 room Four Seasons Hotel in,Newport Center. The proposal also included: the establishment of an off-street parking requirement based upon a demonstrated formula; the acceptance of two off-site parking agreements; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces, tandem parking spades with valet service and two oversized wall signs. The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a 9,000± sq. ft.ballroom/banquet facility with ancillary uses to include a kitchen, restrooms, storage and pre-function areas. A 3,600± sq.ft. lawn area for various functions is also ,proposed. The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic study for the proposed facility and the acceptance of an environmental document. The approval also includes a request to approve a new off-site parking arrangement for aPortion of the hotefs required parking. Site Plan review procedures are set forth in Section 20.01.070 of the q P g Newport Beach Municipal Code, Traffic Study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40, and Off-Site Parking procedures are set forth in Section 20.30.035 D of the Municipal Code. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy K 3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that if the proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. As required by CEQA, certain findings must be adopted prior to a projects, approval. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared for the project and a copy of it is attached for the Planning Commission's review. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan, designates the site for "Administrative, Professional and Financial CommerciaP uses. The subject hotel is a permitted use within this designation. Subject PropgM and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is occupied by the Four Seasons Hotel located on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive. To the north, across an access road, is a bank/office building; to the east; across a parking lot is an office building and parking structure;to the south,across Newport Center Drive,is the Fashion Island Shopping Center; and to the west, across Santa Cruz Drive is the Pacific Mutual office building. Background On August 4, 1983, the Planning Commission recommended the approval of Site Plan Review No. 32 and related items in conjunction with the construction of the Four Seasons 'TO: Plannin!Commission - 3. Hotel facility in Newport Center. An excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated August 4, 1983, is attached for Commission review. At its meeting of September 12, 1983, the City Council approved: the Certification of the Draft EIR; General Plan Amendment No. 82-2 (Four Seasons Hotel); Acceptance of a Traffic Study; Resubdivision No. 752; and Site Plan Review No. 32. The hotel has 325 guestrooms, meeting/conference rooms, banquet facilities, restaurants, and various recreation and service facilities. At its meeting of December 6, 1984 the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3119 and Site Plan Review No.32(Amended),which involved a request to construct a three story parking structure for the Four Seasons Hotel, a reconfiguration of the existing hotel facility and the acceptance of two off-site parking agreements. Said action was taken with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated December 6, 1984. The City Council subsequently approved the two off-site parking agreements on May 12, 1986. At its meeting of August 8, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a second amendment to Site Plan Review No. 32 which permitted the installation of two wall identification signs on the building. Said action was taken with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated August 8, 1991. AnOy5ia The subject application involves a request to construct a new 9,000 square foot ballroom with ancillary uses including a kitchen, restrooms, a storage room and pre-function areas. The proposal also includes a 3,600± sq.ft. lawn area which will be used for a variety of out- door gatherings such as garden parties and outdoor weddings. As shown on the attached site plan, the new ballroom facility and function lawn area will be located on the northeasterly portion of the site, adjacent to Center Drive. That portion of the site is currently developed with surface parking and a large turf area. The proposed ballroom and function lawn additions will increase the hotel's total banquet and meeting area from 11,225± square feet to 23,828± square feet. In accordance with the allowable occupancies set forth in the Uniform Building Code, the maximum occupancies for the proposed ballroom and function lawn will be 600 people and 240 people, respectively. As shown on the attached site plan, vehicular access to the ballroom will be via Center Drive which will provide access to a new motor court,located southeasterly of the ballroom. The new motor court is currently used as a surface parking lot containing 21 parking spaces. These and 20 other surface parking spaces in an adjoining parking area will be lost as a result of the ballroom construction. 0. TO: Planning Commission - 4. Required Off-Street Parking Based on the original approval of Site Plan Review No.32, 369 parking spaces are required for the hotel and related facilities. Said parking requirement was established based on a demonstrated formula approved by the Planning Commission. There are currently 375 parking spaces provided for the hotel, 349 of which are located in the off-site parking structure adjacent to the hoters existing motor court, 18 surface parking spaces located adjacent to the hotel parking structure, and 8 handicapped parking spaces located within the motor court. In accordance the Newport Beach Zoning Code, the parking requirement for public assembly uses without fixed seating is one parking space for each 35 square feet. Based on this formula, 360 parking spaces will be required for the proposed ballroom and function lawn (12,600± sgft. _ 35 sgft.= 360 spaces). It should be noted that this figure reflects a worst case situation which assumes that none of the occupants of the ballroom or the function lawn will be hotel guests and therefore are generating a parking demand in addition to the existing hotel parking demand. However, just as the consulting traffic engineer assumed that 25 percent of the ballroom and function lawn patrons would be hotel guests and 75 percent would be non-hotel guests, it is staffs opinion that the required parking should be based on the same assumption,thereby reducing the number of additional required parking spaces to 270 spaces (360 parking spaces x 75 % = 270 spaces). Based on this ,figure, the total parking requirement for the hotel will increase to 639 spaces (369 spaces + 270 spaces = 639 spaces). Proposed Off-Street Parking In order to provide the additional off-street parking, the applicant is proposing to utilize the parking structure located across Center Drive from the proposed ballroom. The parking structure currently contains 1,362 parking spaces. Inasmuch as this and one other parking structure,along with a variety of surface parking lots,provide all of the required parking for the five office buildings located in Block 600 (600, 610, 620, 630, and 660 Newport Center Drive), it is necessary to consider the total parking requirement for Block 600 in order to determine if there is adequate excess parking for the proposed ballroom and function lawn area. In order to make this determination,the applicant hasprepared the•following parking survey which indicates that there are a total of 3,141 parking spaces within Block 600 of Newport Center Drive (see attached parking survey plan for locations). Parking Location Standard Handicap Total -Spaces spaces Parking Structure at 600 Newport Center Dr. 1,093 6 1,099 Surface Lot at 610 Newport Center Dr. 16 1 17 t TO. Planning - S. • Parking Location Standard Handicap Total Spaces Spaces Spaces Surface Lot at 620 Newport Center Dr. 22 1 23 Parking Structure at 630 Newport Center Dr. 1,355 7 1,362 Surface Lot at 630 Newport Center Dr. 41 41 Wells Fargo Surface Lot 27 1 28 Surface Lot at 660 Newport Center Dr. 216 216 Parking Structure for Four Seasons Hotel 349 349 Surface Parking for Four Seasons Hotel j-L 8 26 Total 3,137 24 3,161 The off-street parking requirement for the existing office uses within Block 600 is based on a formula of one parking spaces for each 375 square feet of office floor area. This formula is in accordance with the pool parking concept that was established in conjunction with the Planning Commission's approval of Use Permit No. 1805, on November 18, 1976. There is currently 792,457±1 square feet of office area within Block 600 which requires 2,114 parking spaces (792,457± sq.ft.= 375 sq.ft.= 2,113.2 of 2,114 spaces). In addition, the Planning Commission established a parking requirement of 113 parking spaces for the new Family Fitness Center at 600 Newport Center Drive,in conjunction with the approval of Use Permit No. 35W. Based on these figures, a total of 2,227 parking spaces are required for the other uses in Block 600 other than the hotel and related activities which leaves 934 remaining parking spaces. It is also noted that the location of the proposed ballroom 1 The parking analysis on Page 10 of the attached traffic study used a figure of 788,654 square feet of Existing office floor area which is incorrect. 2 The parking analysis on Page 10 of the attached traffic study also assumed the new Family Fitness Center is to occupy,space previously used for offices and therefore indicated a net increase of 74 parking spaces based on the difference between the number of parking spaces required by the office parking formula and the 113 parking spaces required for the fitness center. However, the fitness center will occupy floor area previously used as a restaurant which was not previously included in the required parking tabulation for Block 600; therefore the net increase in required parking as a result of the fitness center is 113 parking spaces. TO: Planning Commission - 6. addition will result in a loss of 41 surface parking spaces. Therefore, the remaining. available parking, excluding the hotel,will be 893 spaces which is 254 spaces more than the newly suggested hotel parking requirement of 639 spaces. It should also be noted that the hotel also has the use of the 660 Newport Center Drive Surface Lot (216 parking spaces) for overflow parking in conjunction with special events during the evening.and on weekends. Off-Siting Arrangement Inasmuch as the parking structure which the applicant intends to use for the additional required parking is located on a separate parcel from the hotel site, Section 20.30.035 D of the Municipal Code requires the approval of an off-site parking arrangement by the Planning Commission and the City Council. (An off-site parking agreement is not required in this particular case, since both properties are owned by.'The Irvine Company.) In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve an off-site parking arrangement, the following findings must be made. (1) Such lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. (2) Parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. (3) Such lot and the building site are in the same ownership, or the owners of the building sites have a common ownership in such lot, and the owner or owners are entitled to the immediate possession and use thereof (ownership of the off-site lot must be ownership in fee or a leasehold interest of a duration adequate to serve all proposed uses on the building site or sites). (4.) The owner or owners and the City, upon the approval of the City Council, execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, providing for the maintenance of the required off-street parking on such lot for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off-street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Department. Development. Staff has no objections to the proposed off-site parking arrangement inasmuch as the proposed parking is easily accessible and presents no traffic or circulation hazards for the surrounding area. It is staffs opinion that all of the above findings can be easily made in conjunction with the proposed off-site parking arrangement. Traffic Study A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The City Traffic Engineer has identified 'TO: I a•Commission - 7. ten intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. Each of these intersections are identified in Table 2 on Page 4 of the attached traffic study. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of the projected 21/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. As summarized in Table 4 located on Page 7 of the attached traffic study, an analysis of each of the ten,intersections identified an increase in traffic at one or more intersection legs that exceeded 1% of the projected 2-1/x hour morning and afternoon peak traffic at the following seven intersections: Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road Bristol Street and Jamboree Road Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road and Ford Road-Eastbluff Drive Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road Therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) analysis was prepared for each of the seven.intersections. As indicated in Table 5, located on Page 8 of the attached traffic study, the ICU values during the A.M. peak hour exceeded 0.90 at the following intersections: ICU Value Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road 0.98 Bristol Street and Jamboree Road 0.97 Jamboree Road and Ford-Eastbluff Drive 0.95 As shown in Table 5 on Page 8 of the attached traffic study, the study intersections of Bristol Street North and Jamboree Road, and Jamboree Road and Ford Road-Eastbluff Drive,have ICU values of 0.98 and 0.95, respectively. These ICU values were maintained from the existing plus growth plus committed project conditions and did not increase with the project; therefore, the project would have no traffic impact. However, the intersection of Bristol Street and Jamboree Road did have an increase in the ICU value from 0.97 to 0.98 during the A.M. peak hour period and therefore requires mitigation action. As indicated on Page 12 of the attached traffic study, the suggested mitigation is to restrict the use of the proposed function lawn area before 10:00 a.m. on Monday through Friday. It should also be noted that when the new on-ramp to the north bound Highway 73 from the northbound Jamboree Road is completed, this mitigation will no longer be required. Therefore, staff has included a sunset provision for the mitigation measure which is linked to the future construction of the new on-ramp on Highway 73. TO: Pkin Commission - 8. • � ,Specific Findings In accordance with the provisions of Section 20.10.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the review of site plans have specific standards of review. Each standard is listed below, with a brief discussion of the project as it relates to each. 1. Sites subject to Site Plan Review under the provisions of this chaptershall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs or other sloped' areas, trees and shrubs shall not be indiscriminately destroyed: The proposed project is an expansion of an existing hotel facility located in a regional commercial center, on,a parcel which contains no unusual or sensitive land forms such as coastal bluffs or other slope areas nor are there any natural occurring trees or shrubs on-site. 2. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development o the surroundings and o the City: The subject project is located in P f g f ty J P J Block 600 of Newport Center which is known as Financial Plaza and which contain a mixture of administrative and financial commercial developments. The existing development is a combination of low rise support structures and high rise office buildings. The proposed ballroom,which will maintain an overall height of 29 feet 6 inchest, will be in keeping with the general character of the area. The location of the ballroom will be to the interior of the block and will be integrated into the existing hotel site development. 3. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan: There are no view parks or roadways designated as a Scenic Highway or Drive in the vicinity of the project. 4. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected No structures or landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission or City Council, on review or appea4 JM& that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. There are no environmentally sensitive areas within the subject property. 5. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless speciftc mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission or City Councir, on review or appeal; finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts: The site is not located in an area of particular geologic hazard, other than the seismic hazards common to the Southern California area. TO. Planning•Commission - 9. • 6. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas,pedestrian and vehicular access ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. The existing hotel site is irregular in shape and maintains its primary vehicular access from a private access road (Center Drive)which provides vehicular access to the existing hotel motor court and related parking structure. Vehicular access and related off-street parking for the proposed ballroom and function lawn area will also be accessed from Center Drive. In addition, the project includes a second motor court adjacent to Center Drive which will provide valet drop-off and delivery for the proposed ballroom and function lawn area, which will allow independent operation of said facilities without impacting the main entry motor court. 7. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable Specific Area Plan policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives: As discussed in the General Plan Compliance section, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. 8. Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources. As indicated previously, the subject property does not have any unusual characteristics or sensitive resources which must be protected. 9. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be concealed: The suggested conditions of approval include adequate provisions to insure the screening of electrical and mechanical equipment. 10. Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible: There are no archeological or historical resources on-site. 11. Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district. The project is located within a large regional commercial and office center. There are no residential areas that will be effected from the project. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve these applications,it is suggested that such action be taken with the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". Inasmuch as staff can not reasonably determine findings for denial of the application at this time, no exhibit for denial has been provided; however, the possibility remains that information may arise at the public hearing which may justify the Planning Commission's denial of the subject application. 4 a. To. Planning Commission - 10. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By its W. William Ward w/1L Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "X" Vicinity Map Negative Declaration Excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated August 4, 1983 for Site Plan Review No. 32 and related applications Excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated December 6, 1984 for Use Permit No. 3119 and Site,Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) Excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated August 8, 1991 for Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) Block 600 Newport Center Drive Parking Survey Traffic Study including Parking Study Site Plan,Floor Plan,Elevations, Sections and Plan of the New Motor Court p1anning\b111-w\up\spf32a 'TO: PlannirlCommission - 11. EXHIBIT "A' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 92, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.32 (AMENDED) AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (January 6, 1994) A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and imposing the following mitigation measures: Findines• 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K 3. 2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 3. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans-shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 2. Ce he function lawn area shall be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and { .weekdays, until such time as the northbound Jamboree Road on-ramp to 73 is constructed. TO: Pllaamung Commission - 12. 0 L 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply wiff Council Policies K-5 and K 6,regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. B. Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amendedl indin 1. That development of the subject property will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement,acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. S. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 6. That there are no unique site characteristics or environmentally sensitive areas on- site which should be protected. 7. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 8. The development is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. 9. That there are no archeological or historical resources on-site. 10. 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. 11. That public improvements may be required of the applicant per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. t TO: Plann#Commission - 13. 12. The project will substantially comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 13. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 14. That the proposed off-site parking area is so located as to be useful in conjunction with the proposed ballroom and function lawn. 15. That the parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding, area. 16. That the off-site parking lot and the building site are in the same ownership, and the owner is entitled to the immediate possession and use thereof. 17. That the owner and the City, upon the approval of City Council, will execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, providing for the maintenance of the required off-street parking on such lot for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site. Such instruments will be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the Planning Development. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Site Plan Review No.32, Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) as approved on December 6, 1984 and August 8, 1991 and Use Permit No. 3119 shall be fulfilled. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and, the Public Works Department. 4. That the on-site parking,vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain the City Council's approval of an off-site parking arrangement which provides for 270 parking spaces within the parking structure located at 630 Newport Center Drive for the proposed hotel expansion. 6. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the off-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self-parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. TO: Plaannning Commission - 14. ` 7. That the intersection of the private street and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and, other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 8. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas-shall be screened from Public Streets and adjoining properties. 9. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. . 10. That the Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 12. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall deposit $100,000.00 for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Cruz Drive and San Clemente Drive/Center Drive. 13, That prior to occupancy, the applicant shall deposit $50,000.00 towards the cost of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Center Drive. 14. That the bus shelter on San Joaquin Hills Road east of Santa Cruz Drive shall be removed. (No buses travel this section of San Joaquin Hills Road.) �15. Advertising in the bus shelter adjacent to the hotel, on Newport Center Drive, shall be restricted to businesses located on the hotel grounds. As an alternative, the site of the shelter shall be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. 16. Unless otherwise approved, a parking plan showing the tandem and compact spaces and' the valet operation area shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review. 17. That the condition of Traffic Study No. 92,shall be fulfilled. 18. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.60.060 H of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. TO: Planning Commission - 15. C. Traffic Study No. 92: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: indin 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary-modified', or 'primary' street. Condition: 1. Use of the outdooffauction area shall be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 .m. weekdays until such time as the northbound Jamboree Road on-ramp to the SR-73 is constructed. VICINITY MAP Traffic Study No.92 Site Plan Review No. 32 (AWNDE-D), .P� 4 H 0♦ 4. �6 n iy aN SAN C[L4CNfL 4t CRIVL tyiittti! .A. .:::xi`£i4�• .fie s li .... ... HE t;:£ :iiiiiliiEiiii:.`:ia:r• '..'• i. < S�jC p Mill:•�.;m •'` {bts4.:t:•iCl 1.Ri_..�...., H ii�ti£F i ..";: :..... rnrsti€i4ifijt!. V Ja�Q� Siiil't f4i E i•s `/ Y`?__ ��''e ` CLRPLR "-t 3 1!f1P�pt oRIYt a City of Newport Beach Planning Department Ma♦drt !. 1993 t CI79. OF NEWPORT BEAC# 657 9 4 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 NEGATIVE DECLARATION F I L E D To: From: City of Newport Beach APC 17 $93 Office of Planning and Research From: Department El1400 Tenth Street Room 121 3300 Newport BouJcvaydp,pt0 �� S�QUnty Jerk Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA gg��� II77 (Orange County) lypn..r.�OE 187Y County Clerk,County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 1 ----------.... — J Public reviewperiod December 17, 1993 - January 6, 94 Name of Project: Four Seasons Hotel Addition , Traffic Study No. 92 , SPR No.32 Amended Project Location: 690 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach Construction of a 25,816 sq,.ft. addition for ballroom and Project Description: banquet facility. Finding. Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the env idnment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to fmal 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. Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. , Ifyou 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 changes or 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. p ® SorED Date 12/17/93 John If.11ouglas, P VE Enviro ntal C o dinator L.GRANVILLE,County Ctelk 111 UEPU Revised 4/92 •ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CSECIaiSIO r CITY OF NEMRT BEAM I. BACKGRODND 1. Application No: Traffic Study No. 92, Site Plan .Review No. 67 2. Project name: Four Seasons Hotel Addition a. Project location: 690 Newport Center �Drive, Newport 'Beach 4. Applicant: The Irvine Company II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See attached explanations), es. Maybe 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 outface relief features? _ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel, of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or ,property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground .failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ c. ,Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? �S Environmental Analysis Checkliso Page 2 • es Maybe No 3. water. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? --- — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? -- C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — f. Alteration of the direction or rate of Y flow of ground water? {} g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? —' — h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ y� L. Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ A 4. Plant Life. Would the proposal result in% a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? — d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural �[ crop? jq 0 0 L J Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 3 es Maybe No S. Animal Life. Would the proposal result ins a. Change in the diversity of species, or numberm of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects)? _ _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? — C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ — 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Licht and Glare. Would the proposal produce new light or glare? .- 8. 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? 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? b. Possible interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? 11. Population. Would the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? 12. Housino. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? _ Ehvirodmental Analysis Checklis Page 4 • Yea Maybe ILO 13. TranO-ortation/Circulation/Parkins. Would the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? -- b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? "— d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? -- — e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? n. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor �[ vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? -lam 14. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? C. Schools? -- d. Parks or other recreational facilities? {�- e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Enercry. Would the proposal result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? — 16. Utilites. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Electricity or natural gas? b. Communications systems? -- C. Water or wastewater? — X d. Storm water drainage? e. Solid waste and disposal? -- t� 10 Environmental Analysis Chectiet - Page 5 ' Yes Maybe two 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)? _ 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? 19. Recreation. Would the proposal result in an Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? _ 20. Cultural Resources. Would the proposals a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historid building, structure, or object? C. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ 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- term impacts endure well into the future.) �y Environmental Analysis Checklie Page 6 Yes Maybe ILO 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may have an impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant; or, a project may have incremental impacts that are individually minor, but are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, present, or probable future projects.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ] I find that the proposed project CODLD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WIM BE PREPARED' I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached pages have been incorporated into the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED• ] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Aziz H. Aslami (Associate Planner) Date: 12-7-93 Signature: Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations fA...\FORMS\CHECKLST. V Revised 12/91 0 • 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS FOUR SEASONS HOTEL Traffic Study No. 92 Site Plan Review No. 67 Project Description The proposed site is a part of an existing hotel which is located on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive within Block 600 of Newport Center(see Vicinity Map). Currently the site is a hotel facility with 325 rooms. The site is surrounded by professional office buildings, financial institutions and Fashion Island retail commercial. The proposed project will involve construction of 25,816 sq.ft. addition for a ballroom and banquet facility. The subject parcel is approximately 7.59 acre in size. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed projeces environmental Impacts. 1. Earth The site is an existing hotel facility. A portion of the existing surface parking and landscaping area will be altered to accommodate the proposed on-site improvement. The construction activities associated with the completion of the project will result in some soil disruption, excavation and compaction or soil displacement. An estimated export of approximately 3,340 cubic yards of earthen material is anticipated. A geotechnical report has been prepared for the site indicating that the soil contents of the site have sufficient quality to sustain the proposed improvement. There are no known active faults in the vicinity of this project. Compliance with the City Excavation and grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to insignificant level. 2. Air Construction Impacts During the course of construction some dust and odor from 1 diesel exhaust may be created. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Operational Impacts Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. Cooking odors will be treated via carbon filtration system of mechanical exhaust devices, therefore, these effects are not considered significant. 3. Water The proposed site is largely developed and the proposed improvements would not substantially increase water runoff. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. The project is located outside flood hazard area. Therefore, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 4. Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. 5. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. 6. Noise Construction Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. The hours of operation, regarding the construction noise, are regulated by the provisions contained in the City Noise Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 10.28). The Big Canyon residential area is the nearest noise sensitive land use, but the nearest homes are located a minimum of 800 feet from the proposed project, therefore construction noise effects are not expected to be significant. 2 • Operational Impact operational noise impacts would result primarily from traffic generated by the project. Since projected traffic generation is within the level assumed in the General Plan,no new significant impacts would be anticipated as a result of the proposed action. 7. Light and Glare If exterior lighting is required, the proposed project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect adjacent properties. The following mitigation would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that direct rays are confined to the site to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure #1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 8. Land, Use 'The site is designated for Administrative, Professional' and Financial Commercial land use, which permit hotel development, by the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Under the current General Plan Land Use provisions, the existing 325 room hotel is a permitted land use. The Zoning is APF-H designating the site for professional office development. The proposed addition of a ballroom and banquet facility is considered an ancillary use, therefore allowed by the City's General Plan and Zoning. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and Coastal Permit is not required. 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by 3 �,6 this project. 10. Risk of Upset The proposed use is a ballroom and banquet facility within an existing hotel operation. No foreseeable hazard to public health and safety would be anticipated. 11. Population The proposed project would increase the hotel employment, however, no direct population increase would result from the project. 12. Housing It is anticipated that the proposed project could cause a minor increase in employment, which would generate an increased demand for housing, but this increase is not considered significant. 13. Transportation/Parking Presently the subject site is a 325 room hotel operation. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development therefore, a traffic study became necessary to evaluate the impact of the subject proposal on the City's existing circulation system. The Traffic Engineer selected ten intersections that would be affected by the proposed project, and a traffic study has been prepared as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The one percent traffic volume test was applied to the selected intersections and seven of the intersections exceeded the maximum one percent volume test therefore,further analysis of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) were required for the following intersections. Bristol Street N. @ Jamboree Road Bristol Street S. @ Jamboree Road Jamboree Road @ San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road @ Eastbluff/ Ford Road Jamboree Road @ MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard @ San Joaquin Hills Road 4 �1 0 • ti 3 MacArthur Boulevard @ Ford Road' ICU analysis was performed for both a.m. and p.m. 2-1/.2 hour peak periods and determined that three intersections are projected to have ICU values of higher than 0.90. At two of these three intersections ( Bristol Street N. @ Jamboree Road and Jamboree Road @ Eastbluff/Ford ,Road) ICU values would not increase as compared to existing conditions,therefore no mitigation is necessary. At the Bristol Street S. @ Jamboree Road intersection the project would cause an ICU increase from, 0.97 to 0.98, therefore mitigation is required under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The following mitigation measure would reduce traffic at this intersection so as to maintain the existing 0.97 ICU value as required by the TPO. Mitigation Measure No. 2 Use of the outdoor function area shall be prohibited during the hours of 6.00 am. to 9.30 a.m. weekdays until such time as the northbound Jamboree Road onramp to the SR-73 is constructed ParkinE. Currently, the Four Seasons Hotel is required to maintain 369 parking spaces. The Irvine Company/Four Seasons Hotel has an off-site parking agreement with the City which is binding to the use of the parking structure which is located directly to the north of the proposed ballroom/banquet addition at 630 Newport Center Drive and accommodates for a total of 1,362 parking spaces. Based on a parking study conducted for the Block 600 which contains the proposed project site, there are a total of 3,141 parking garage,provided. Without the proposed addition, at full occupancy of all uses within the-Block 600,the parking requirement would remain at 2,625 spaces. The addition of the ballroom and banquet facility would cause the elimination of 41 existing surface parking spaces which would reduce the available parking to 3,100(3,141- 41) spaces: The proposed development would require a total of 220 additional parking spaces,which would increase the total block parking requirement to 2,845 spaces. The excess parking available within the Block 600 is 475 (3,100-2,625)spaces,which would satisfy the additional parking requirement with a surplus of 255 parking spaces. 5 Z� 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create a significant additional demand for these services. 15. Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. 16. Utilities and Service Systems The site has already been served by the utility System and no significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system is anticipated. 17. Human Health The proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials on the site, therefore, no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. 18. Aesthetics Based on the information submitted to the City and by compliance with the provisions contained in the City's Zoning Code regarding the project's design, signs, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site, the effects shall be reduced to insignificant level. 19. Recreation The quality and quantity of recreational activities will not be impacted by the project. 20. Cultural Resources The project site is located in an area where archaeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past and may exist on this site. As a result, the applicant will be required to comply with the following mitigation measure, which requires compliance with Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological surveys and recovery of resources. 6 • • c Mitigation Measure No. 3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K-S and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the 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 cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4.- _ There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. R\...\traffic\tpo92\neg-0ec 7 3° 1 VICINITY MAP Traffic Study No.92 Site Plan Review No. 67 4 Z Ny 4 b �a 9�`46 �P J� SAY CLCNCNTC �� �R/VC tisT,.` i � � ;�£�:ii�iil:•°ai'r:•'iiiiji3i f,,„:�:rt Z S"5.•..''"E£5f t ft mm T u ciffhs;°e M.6, E 'EEi€fEj'. „ „siid ::::.•:::::•.. {{{{fsfj'jii,. 3F�bf%1''!L:fif'rE .rii :''.,S 34 1 CCNTCR POSt �•4/VO City of Newport Beach Planning Department D.cembe 9: 1993 �, 1. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that thetanning Commission of the City of NeeSport Beach will hold a public hearing on the applications of The Irvine Company for Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) and Traffic Study No. 92 on property located at 690 Newport Center Drive. Request to amend a previously approved Site Plan Review which permitted the construction of the 325 room Four Seasons Hotel in Newport Center. The proposal also included: the establishment of an off-street parking requirement based upon a demonstrated formula, the acceptance of two off-site narking agreements, and-a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces tandem parking spaces with valet service and two oversized wall signs The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a 9.000± square foot ballroom/banquet facilily with ancillary uses to include a kitchen, restrooms storage and pre-function areas to include a function lawn area.- The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic study for the proposed ballroom/banquet facility. 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 ¢.Ih day of January 1994, 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. �Z LU^.�Iv�)>>KJ(�LI{SI ,�iINU(LS r x Au 4, 1983 a City of New ort .Beach ROLL:CALL INDEX Request to consider revocation proceedings on line Item 04 Permit No. 1434 that permitted the sale of alcoholic verages Sn conjunction with "Novak's Place" (formerly "z es") in the c-1 District. v LOCATIO Lot No. 2, Bloch +' Tract No. 323, located' USE PERMIT 4� at 2920 East Coast Highway, .on the NO. 1434 ortheasterly side East Coast Highway, (Reyoca- i be sell Heliotrope Avenue and Iris Avenue, tion in C one del Mar. ZONE: C- APPLICANT: Robert Novak, rona del Mar OWNER. Mary %lohs, Dana Po pt \ v INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Jim Hewicker, Plannicq Director stated that staff has REMOVED ' • recommended removal from calendar in conjunct n with FAOM k this item. Ca 7NDAP. Motion X Motion was made for the removal of calendar of Us All Ayes X % X X X X • Permit No. 1434 (Revocation), which MOTION CARRIED. 4 -Acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report for Item 05 General Plan Amendment No. 82-2 (Four seasons) so to allow the construction of a 325 room hotel with related DRAFT SIR hotel and service facilities including ballrooms, < meeting roome, cocktail lounges and restaurants. r INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND AND s Request to amend the Newport Beach General Plan for Item #6 Block 600 of Newport Center so as to Allow the construction of a 325 room Four Seasons Hotel with GPA 82-2 i related hotel and service facilities including ! ballrooms,_ meeting rooms, cocktail lounges and restaurants. AND MM - D - a • • Y w W�1Mm� tti� IAINUI f r AS 4, 1903 d P � y - 'City. of .New opt Beach ROLL CAU INDEX p Request to consider a Traffic Study to allow the item 117 ; construction of a Four seasons Hotel. TRAFFIC AND STUDY Request to reeubdividc a portion of an existing lot Stem AB into four numbered parcels and two lettered parcels. Parcel No. 1 is for parking related to the Wells Fargo RESUB- Buildingl Parcel No. 2 is for off-site Four Seasons DiVISiON Hotel parking; Parcel No. 3 is for the hotel site; NO. 752 Parcel No. 4 is for existing parking related to existing office/commercial uses; Parcel No. PA" is for a private street and Parcel "B" is for landscaping rnd sign purposes. AND AND a Request for Planning Commission'a approval of Site Plan item 19 Review No. 32-for the ,proposed 325 unit Four Sercors Hotel in Newport Canter. As required by the Newport SITE PLAN Beach General Plan, a detailed review �of the proposed Review site plan must be conducted to fully evaluate the GPA NO. 3232 request and related applications. The site plan review will also determine the parking requirements by a S demonstrated formula and Includes the acceptance of too - off-site parking agreements. This proposal also includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces and spaces which ( are not independently accessible, and two oversized wall signs. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 22, Tract No. 6015 APPROVED .m located at 600 Newport Center Drive, on .CONDI= } the northeasterly corner of Newport Censer TIONALLY Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. ZONEt C-O-H APPLICANTS Four Seasons Newport ConterS Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Mr. Dave Neish, representing Four Seasons Hotel Limited stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting they (Four Seasons Hotel Limited) identified eight (8) Conditions of Approval which they were objecting to. They hive since resolved four of those conditions and still have four conditions they are objecting to. m - 9 - Ll 4 1 CUMAV5SKJNMI MINUIES y `may ay. K Au 4, 1901 �,. Ci 'of: Newport Beach ROUT'GALL INDEX;,.. Listed below are the condition numbers and their responses: Condition No. 29: Concern regarding this particular condition was mentioned because of the fact that it is indicated on Page 94 of the Environmental Impact Report, "That turnouts shall be required but bus turnouts were not necessary unless on-street bus stops are banned throughout Newport Center." One of the main reasons why Four Seasons is concerned about this is the aesthetics. It is felt .that as opposed to having bus turnouts it is more advantageous to have landscaping in %t said areas. Mr. Noish further stated that perhaps an ' amended condition on bus turnouts, shelters or bus stops should be considered where the aour Seasons would continue to work with staff and the Orange County Transit District, and that their requirements would be acceptable'to Four Seasons. ' Is response to a question posed by Commissioner Kurlander, Mr. Heish stated that if the present ' right-of-way is not adequate to accommodate these bus a turnouts he would have no objection to make whatever provisions are necessary for dedication either on-site or off-site. Regarding the conditions for traffic signals, the !first area of concern is in the Environmental Impact Report which contains an independent traffic analysis and traffic study for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance that was prepared by the City's Traffic Consultant. The consultant concluded that the warrants were unnecessary for any of the three signals where staff is suggesting that one be installed and two others be bonded at this time. Mr. Heish stated that the Planning Commission and City Council have been having conversations with the Irvine Company regarding affordable housing that will be coming about at some time in the near future in the Newport Village area. As a result of this, some of the residential densities may be higher than those that were originally anticipated for that particular area in Newport Center. Mr. Neish further stated that he feels that because of future developments increasing, maybe there is a reason why they should get these traffic (• signals. It is felt by Four Seasons Hotel Limited that because they are before the Commission now, it is a convenient way to get these traffic signals. Four Seasons feels that the appropriate avenue to being : - 10 - 3� , ! k CUMNuSSK)NtRS MINUILS r; Au94, 1983 51 o = ` e$ o_ r City of Newport Beach ROLL CAU • INDEX 1 treated fairly would be to pay their pro-rated share of these signals. The traffic generated per day, 3,250 trips, in a very small amou nt of traffic to do three (3) traffic -signals to. What Four Seasons is ! advocating is that they don t mind w paying their shore of hat they are contributing to a pc rtieular intersection. In regards to the Economic Analysis, Mr. Neish stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting it was '• mentioned that Four Seasons will contribute $1,000,000 a year of net revenue to the city of Newport Beach and how this was to be substantiated. Mr. Neish stated •�,, ,r'• w that there are four (4) avenues by which the City .' receives^revenues the first being property tax - In the .• City of Newport Beach share for the Four Seasons Hotel, on the pro perty tnx, on an annual basis, woul d , be • .s,'a..:,, $61,057 per years the second being sales tax - the dales tax that would be generdLad would be $3 282,500, +: , the amount of sales from Four-Seasons. The procedure done to achieve this amount is based on a per room basis, at an annual cost of $10,100 per year. The City's incremental share ,of these totals would be $132,825. Another question asked at the last Planning Commission meeting was asked regarding how much would the merchants of Fashion Island benefit by this hotel? i What Four Seasons has done is taken the $3.2 million figure with an allocated 75♦ of that, which is felt would be spent directly in Newport Center, so they feel it is fair to assume that the merchants of Fashion Island and-Newport Center would have an additional $2.4 million par year. The third area is the occupancy tax and based on the City's 61L share it would be $810,000 a year. As it is known, the City is deliberating increasing that to 8%. If it were in fact B%, that figure would be $1,000,080 a year or an increase of '$270,000 over the 6%. The r other revenue, such as business taxes. 4 .cigarette coxes • municipal fees, traffic tickets, amounts to S11,430 per s car which comes to a grand 0 Y ra total of S1 000 04 or if the 8► bad tax is used it comes to $1.3 million. For , the expenditures the Four Seasons has put in $28,310 per year which is an average cost per Acro. The not surplus of $1,012,427 is, the not revenue to the City, and using the 8e bed tax would be $1,3820477. This is based on 325 rooms at an average rate- of $150 a night. 1 .hraNY�y 3G , I COM_MS5CNERS MINUTES L " = A 4, 1983 • City :of 'Newport Beach {�,,CAU INDEX . ,•'��„• In response to Chairman King's comment on corrections to figures, Bob Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, stated that there is an error in the cost revenue figures in the staff report (page 4), under the Revenue column for the Original City Fiscal Analysis System, which should read $469,910 instead of $716,8167 under = the Net Revenues column it should read $356,985 instead of $603,891; and the $648,986 figure should read $402,080 which puts the analysis of the hotel under the revised fiscal analysis system within $30,000 or $40.000 of the City's original system. In addition, .` referring to page 23 in the staff report, Condition No. L 34 should read "...unless it is determined for certain ; areas that they are not appropriate for safety or security reasons." On page 24, Condition No. 42 should be deleted since it is redundant. Mr. Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed two other •.�.`, conditions. On page 22, Condition No. 32 should -be 1 read, "That a system shall be designed to trap kitchen grease and incorporate it into the hotel site design, f The other condition is on page 23, Condition No. 39 which should read, "That the hotel shall provide and encourage transportation to the John Wayne Airport..." ti n In response to a question posed by Chairman King, Mr. Nolan, Public Works Director stated that supplementary written material has been provided to the Planning Commission on both the traffic signals and the • bus turnouts. With respect to the bus turnouts, it is felt by the Public Works Department that they are needed, and that they have discussed the matter further with the Orange County Transit District as a result of 'the concern that has been expressed about the wording. Mr. Nolan further stated that the reason for the conflict is because Newport Center Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road have no parking lanes and it is not desirable to allow bus stops in the travel lanes. Thar.:fore, Public Works recommends that bus turnouts be provided. For this reason Mr. Nolan would modify Condition No. 29, page 15, by striking the reference to "or Santa Cruz Drive", since there is not an interest on the part of the District in providing a bus stop on 7 Santa Cruz Drive. Mr. Nolan stated that with regard to the traffic r` signals Mr. Nefsh's comment is fair in saying that there are other areas in Newport Center that share-in ' the traffic generation and if it can be accomplished, R can share in the responsibility for providing the { 1 12 - 0 i { .COMMISSIONERS tMINUTES i "� Aug4, 1983 P+ x o = City.of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX signals. The Conditions or Approval related to traffic signals are Roo. 40, 41 and 42 on pages 16 and 17. Condition No. 42 already contains language indicating that the applicant's share can be reduced by contributions from other projects in the vicinity within the five year time frame. In response to a question posed by Commissioner 'Goff,, Mr. Hen Pringle, Traffic Consultant, stated that the reason why studies were done At the Four Seasons in Dallas and in Houston was that the proponent felt that their hotel was different than the other hotels. In ,order to attempt to verify this, Four Seasons suggested , that they look at and collect data on similar t facilities. Y In response to Commissioner winburn'a comment, Mr. Neish stated .that' ic-inserting language stating that "the applicant shall obtain an additional agreement for overflow parking during peak periods and special events" in Condition No. 9 would be agreeable with him. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Hewicker stated that many conditions were changed because when the parking requirement was changed it eliminated the .need For a lot of other wording changes to the first sat of conditions. X Motion was made for approval of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, subject to Findings in Exhibit "A", s which MOTION CARRIED. X Motion was made For approval of General Plan Amendment No. 52-2, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was mode for approval of Traffic Study, subject to Findings and Conditions in Exhibit "A", which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made for the approval of Resubdivision !!o. 752, subject .to modifications of the Following Findings and Conditions in Exhibit "A"= iI Condition No. 29, page 15s That language be added stating that if additional right-of-way is required, the applicant will provide the additional right-of-way .� -for the bus turnouts and shelters. In addition, the reference to Santa Cruz Drive was deleted. 38 • CUh1NVSSK)NLP ' `1itiUl I J ` AuQ 4, 1983 L x .. .;:.; = City of Newport Beach ROLL,CALL '• INDEX c, : Condition No. 41, pages 16 and 17: That Condition No. 41 be worded like Condition No. 42 is worded which gives the applicant some possibility to recover their contributions within the five year period from other projects. I Motion for ap;+roval of Resubdivision No. 752 with the I amended conditions was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. '! Motion was made for approval of Site Plan Review No. 32, subject to Findings and Conditions with changes In- Condition No. 32, page 22, to read, "That a system shall be designed to trap kitchen grease..." r Condition No. 34, page 23, to read, "...areas that they ' = " are not appropriate for safety or security reasons." Condition No. 39, page 23, to read, "That the hotel shall provide and encourage transportation to the John Wayne Airport for hotel patrons." : Condition No. 9, page 19, to return Condition No. 9 to its original state with the deletion of the number of y parking spaces. Condition No. 42, page. 24, to be deleted. Motion for approval of Site Plan Review No. 32 was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED, A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT i FINDINGS i 1. That the environmental docume:t is complete and has brmi prepared in compliance with the Californi.. Lnv[rn•e•r_nrrl n,.;J ;' �:;�. the State Ct('!. (L!C.lJ. 1.:; '• s 2. That the contents of the environmental document , have been considered in the various decisions Y on this project. 4 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the ` - 14 - i 3�� ! w WAIN\I'KAN UI M& �11hV11.1 x AM 4, 1983 `• o ° Cityof Newport 'Beach f ROLL,GU INDEX r proposed project, specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any other potential mitigationmeasures or alternative to the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures have been ! incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as conditions of approval. i The findings made in regaida to approval of the t" "Four Seasons Hotel r CPA 82-2" project SIR apply also to the approval of the General Plan Amendment, Resubdivision No. 752 and Site Plan Review No. 32. B. GENERAL PUN 1. Adopt Resolution No. L9r — recoamending an amendment to the Land Use Element of the i General Plan to the City Council as proposed by 7 the applicant# further recommending that the '•, Four Seasons Hotel contribute a negotiated sum of money approved by the City Council towards, the, construction of circulation systems improvementa# and incorporating all revisions r adopted by the Planning Commission and t incorporating the Findings listed in "A" above of this Exhibit related to this portion of the project. a C. TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS 1. That the Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on t the circulation system In accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. Z. That the Traffic Study indicates that the t project-generated traffic will .be greater than one percent of existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical f intersections, and will add to an X unsatisfactory level of traffic service at critical intersection whicn will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. 15 - t 2' 1�D WMMI5.>KP4MS MINUTLS , • ; A 4, 1983 •(, .e•• a•x ° C. .:of Newport Beach ROLL-CALL INDEX 3. That the Traffic Studies suggest several circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. 4. That the proposed project, including circulation system improvements, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified" or "primary" street. COM,ITSONS � 1. That prior to the occupancy of any portion of the project facilities the Circulation System Improvements described in Table 8, page 14 of the Appendix D "Traffic Analysis" of the "Draft EIR Four Seasons Hotel - OVA 82-2" shall have been made (unless subsequent project approval require modification thereto). The Circulation System Improvements shall be subject to the �• approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project the applicant shall pay their "fair share" of the ultimate improvements ° to the City-a Circulation System as may be determined by the City. • D. RESUBDIVISION NO. 752 FINDINGS 1. That the map meets the requirement of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the Findings listed in "A" of this Exhibit ' are made related to this portion of the project. CONDITIONS • 1. That a parcel map be recorded. •i 16 - • • t (_U,`1NVb5KXgLKS �IIP:UfES .: AOt 4, 1683 o City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL' J INDEX 2. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building 1 and Planning Departments. 3. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize spy potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 4. The grading permit shall include, if required, .i a description of haul routes, 'access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 6. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and Se subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall 'be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality control Board, Santa Ana Region. 6. The velocity of concentrated run-off from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as a part of the project 7 design. 7. Thep grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. -8. That erosion control measures shall be done on , any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved,by the Grading Engineer. 9. Control of infiltration to the groundwater system for the project shall be provided ha part of the project design. 10. That existing on-site drainage facilities shall be improved or updated to the satisfaction .of • the Public Works and Building Department. 17 c.vn�Nv�sxx�t� ,wNu I t5 ;, t x Au .,t 4, 1983 q v 4 City,of.,;NeVmort Beach Fai:'CAU INDEX 11. Any modification of existing on-site drainage systems or extensions of culverts for contributory drainage from surrounding areas t shall be studies during project design and necessary improvements installed in conformance K: with local ordinances and accepted engineering practices and in a manner acceptable to the City Public Works and Building Departments, 12. A qualified archaeologist or paleontologist ,r shall evaluate the site prior to co:mnrneement of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies X-5 and X-6. 13. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall waive the portions of AB 952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for mitigation of archaeological impacts, in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. p 14. Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering the Bite for dust control, containing excavated soil onsite until it is hauled away, and periodically r washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. 15. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project i shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate t and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to the occupancy of. any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the .landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan). I. 16. The landscape plans shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning and t Public Works Departments. 17. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance t program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. - 15 - • • t LUA11vV��U(�LrC� NAIINU!I h . Au 4, 1981 � r x City of New ort Beach ' ROLL CAU INDEX 18. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation and, be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over-watering. u 19. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on fire-retardant vegetation. R 20. street trees shall be provided along the public streets as required by the Public Works Department and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. S 21. Landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of woods and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy �. condition. 22. Parking areas shall be paved early during the construction period. Said timing shall be approved by the Grading Engineer and Planning Department. 2.1. Prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits the applicant shall deposit with ,the City Finance Director the sum + proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in ; the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coact Highway in the West Howport area. ] K 24. Prior to isauanco of any grading and/or building permits the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be use: for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the westerly side of Jamboree Road between Eastbluff Drive (No.) and Ford Road. i 25. Prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits the applicant shall deposit with the City Financo Director thn aem, proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to he used for the b - 19 q , (_(MAW K)Nt.)U All\(;It :, = Au 4, 1987 �Y•yy City of Newport Beach R0LL._cq)1 INDEX ' C construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of East Ceast Highway in the Irvine Terrace area. k 26. That prior to the issuance of any building , permits a specific soils and foundation -study shall be prepared and approved by the Building }, Department. 27. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases '• or sub-leases for space in the project and t shall be included in any Covenants Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against any undeveloped site. ro DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The lessee, hie heirs, successors and assigns, herein, acknowledge that: a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such service; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach will continue to oppose additional commercial area service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns, will not actively oppose any action taken by the city of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. ` 28. That all conditions of the approved Traffic Study be met. 29. Bus turnouts and shelters shall be installed on i Newport Center Drive and on San Joaquin Hills Road at locations approved by the Traffic i Engineer and the Orange County Transit District. The shelters shall be locatedr outside the right-of-way, if additional right-of-way is required, the applicant will . 20 - 1 � • 0 t CGMMISSUNI:K_S MINU1 kS a� r AUO 4, 1983 a City of Newport Beach ROl1:CALL INDEX a provide the additional right-of-way for the bus turnouts and shelters. 30. That a sidewalk connecting .Center Drive with Newport Center Dr. on or adjacent to the ' t easterly property lines of Parcels No. 2 and 3 r of Pesubdivision No. 752 shall be provided in a manner approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. If the sidewalk is on { adjacent property it shall be guaranteed in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney's office. e 31. sight distance at the intersection of Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive shall be provided in accordance with City Std. swg. 110-L with Santa Cruz Drive as n seconder arterial. 32. A plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Traffic Engineer showing, how non-hotel patrons will be kept out of the parking lot on Parcels 2 and 3 of Resubdivision s. No. 752. 33. That the intersection of Center Drive and the + private drives be designed to provide sight '. distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the Sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the Sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may Abe approximately modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 34. That prior to the issuance of a building permit f the applicant shall provide the Building Department and the Public Works Department with a letter from the Sanitation District stating that sewer facilities will be available at the time of occupancy. a 35. That all improvements be constructed as + required by ordinance and the Public works t Department. 36. That curb access ramps be constructed at the , intersections of Santa Cruz Drive with San „ Joaquin Hills Road, Center Drive and Newport Cantor Drive. Y x - 21 - x' �6 uJmA D5KJVNLK�, ,MV'NUII ? AUG4, 1983 , �t c I n i m o ° 3 City. of Newport Beach 5, ROIL CAU :- INDEX 37. That the cracked and displaced section of existing sidewalk and cross gutter along Santa 1 Cruz Drive be replaced from Newport Center , Drive to San Joaquin Hills Rd. 38. Reserve existing drive approach along Newport a Center Drive and replace with curb and gutter. 39. That Santa Cruz Drive be restriped'between San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Center Drive to provide for left-turn lanes at San Clemente ' Drive/Center Drive. A striping plan shall be prepared by a licensed Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer, r Existing stripes are to be sandblasted and the street slurry sealed before restriping. 40. That a traffic signal be installed at the } Newport Center Drive/Santa Cruz Drive intersection. 41. The applicant shall post a bond 'to cover the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Center Drive and Newport Center Drive if traffic signal warrants are met within five years after a certificate of occupancy is issued. The applicant's share can be reduced by contributions from other projects in the vicinity within the five year time frame. 42. That a bond be posted to cover the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Cruz Drive and San Clemente Drive/Center ' Drive if traffic signal warrants are mot within 5 years after a certificate of occupancy is # Issued, The applicant's share can be reduced 1 by contributions from other projects in the vicinity within the 5 year time frame. 43. That all vehicular access rights to Newport Center Drive, Santa Cruz Drive and San Joaquin , Hills Road be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach except for Center Drive ' and one drive entrance to Santa Cruz Drive ! between Center Drive and Newport Center Drive. i 44. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be ' prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the _ 22 _ L• 4i)A1rWb>tiX�ltU �ISi,� �.L\t,l; n x A04, 1903 X r � I 1 21 a o Cityof Newport Beach ROLL CAU T 11 INDEX on-site improvements prior to recording of the '. final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer ; systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the duveluper. 1 45. That a pedestrian circulation plan,be submi ttcd to the Planning and Public Works Cepartmerts " for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan shall include the ` extension of the existing 10-foot-wida sidewalk along Center Drive end t:MJx,'t Center Dritt to Santa Cruz Drive. The new sidewalk is to be 8 to 30 feet wide and may pass through the parking, areas. The plan shall also provide a stairway and/or ramp from the remote parking lot to the W911s Fargo Building pedestrian circulation system. ! 46. That a subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the parcel map prior io 'the completion of the public improvements. 47. Prior to occupancy of any building, the r applicants shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. i E. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 32 FINDINGS 1. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and will not preclude the attainment of General Plan objectives and policies. 2. The proposed development will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 3. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from expenditures of Public funds for improvement �f and beautification of street and public facilities within the area. Y - 23 - q ...},i ii.Jm.P.vnLY.YLii:Yt.Y.il:del.Y.lh'uufiY.M:.:tiiL.'=KcLGs.awwxi:.+•::u�4�a:,mu.Wuo...�:w,..wti..w..y-�•�•�,••:••••"•••.•••"•-,•�•••,,••• C UMMISSIUNEKSAV& MINUTES Au 4, 1983 i x L S City of New• ort Beach ROLL CAU INDEX 4. The proposed development promotes the i maintenance of superior site location characteristics adjoining major thoroughfares of City-wide importance. 5. That the Findings listed in "A" of this Exhibit are made to this portion of the project. • 6. Adequate parking spaces and related vehicular circulation will be provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 3 7. The off-site parking areas are so located as to be useful im conjunction with the proposed uses on the building sites. S. Parking on such lots will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 9. Such lots and the building site are in the same ownership. 10. The owner and the City, upon the approval of City Council will execute a written instrument of instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney , prnviding for the maintenance of the required off-street parking on such lots for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. CONDITIONS 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, sign plans, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in the conditions of approval. : 2. That all conditions of the approved Traffic Study be met. 3. That the conditions of Resubdivision No. 752 be set. N 4. Construction to meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code s California Administrative Code - Titles 19 A 24. 5. Any construction on the site should be done in accordance with the height restriction for the area. Said should apply to any landscape z i 24 _ �fy � J COmM5WDNEIt1 AIA MINUTES = x AW 4, 1983 Mix, V' Cir bf .Newport Beach ROLL CAL 'IND=X materials, signs, flags, etc. as well as structures. 6. That within fifteen feet of the Newport Center Drive and of Santa Cruz Drive property lines that no fence or combination retaining wall and' fence be higher than curb height. 7. That a minimum twenty feet (20') landscape buffer be maintained between the tennis court e fence and property line along Newport Center Drive. 8. That within seventy-five feet of the hotel the proposed five and one-half feat (55') stucco wall along Newport Center Drive shall be permitted within 11 fact of the property line and s screened retaining wall shall be permitted. 9. The project applicant shall, obtain an agreement to utilize adjacent parking facilities during the construction, period. The applicant shall obtain an additional agreement for Outflow P4 arkin during peak periods, and for special ecial events. Said agreement(a) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Planning Departmentprior rior to the issuance of any p building or grading permits. 10. That the Hotel provide a total of 369 standard size parking spaces on-site (Parcel No. 3) and off-aito on Parcel No. 2. If additional 1 parking is required, the parking plan may be , modified to increase the number of spaces by allowing up to 2S% compact spaces, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. li. That parking spaces shall be provided for handicapped persons. The number and location of these spaces shall be provided in a manner approved by the city Traffic Engineer and Building Department. 12. (Deleted by Staff) 13. That a plan for tandem parking for both normal operations and, peak periods shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Y - 25 - yo . COMM 590NE r A 4, 1983 r ff. ; k 10 of Newport Beach ROLL'�J� INDEX 14. That the final design of all on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and parking be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic i Engineer and Planning Department. 15. All parking areas shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. This reVlew shall include, but not be limited to, the number and location of compact (except �s for Hotel) and handicap spaces, aisle widths, _ access control and maxia.um slope of ramps and i parking areas. . Y y 16. No access shall be allowed from Santa Cruz Drive to the overflow parking lot. 17. That an off-site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that a total of 369 parking sprees shall be provided for the duration of tha Four Seasons Hotel. The portion of the 369 total spaces which are not "on-site" shall be located on parcel No. 2. The term of the agreement shall be equal to the expected life of all structures within Parcel He. 3 or Resubdivision No. 752 as may be ' determined by the City based upon information supplied by the applicant. IS. That an off-site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that 212 parking spaces shall be provided on Parcel No. 1 for the duration of the wells Fargo Building. Such spaces shall be within 300 feet of the office. The term of the agreement shall ! be equal to the expected life of the wells Fargo Building as may be determined by the City based upon information supplied by the applicant. 19. That the lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and , glare to the adjacent uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical E Engineer] with a letter from the Engineer k stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. i - 26 - I IJMMgSIUNt1U NAINU I I t x AIQ 4, 2983 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX � 20. The applicant shall provide energy-conserving street and parking lot lighting and minimize E decorative or non-functional lighting in a manner•acceptable to Planning Director. 21. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review by than Police Department ,to ensure adequate lighting of pedestrian walkways and parking areas. f 22. The proposed pxojact shall incorporate an i internal security system (i.e. security guard's, i alatma, access limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Planning Department. i 23. (belated by Staff) 3 24. That all buildings on the project site shall be y equipped with fire suppression systems approved by the Fire Department. 25. That all access to the buildings be approved by the Fire Department. 26. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 27. That fire vehicle access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 28. On-site water mains and fire hydrants locations are to be approved by the Fire and Public Works Departments. 29. (Deleted by Staff) t 30. Final design of 'the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. • 31. The project shall incorporate the use of alternative energy technology into building designs and systems for heating pools and spas At the hotel. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for said the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning •;:F•YI^ Director that the concerns of this condition have been met. - 27 - yy . t ' • • COMMSSONERS agh Mil,�I.II LS AM 4, 1983 •� r• 9 'f c City of New at Beach a (BOLL•CALL INDEX 32. That a system shall be designed to trap kitchen grease and incorporated into the hotel site } design, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Building and utilities Departments. The location of the grease trap shall be easily accessible and a city representative shall be allowed access to inspect the system at all times. The applicant shall also supply to the City for approval a •+ grease trap maintenance' program that provides for ongoing maintenance and inspections. 33. That the proposed building identification logo as shown on the easterly and westerly elevations between the roof and the sixteenth floor shall not be internally illuminated. 34. Openable windows for guest rooms shall be used to allow cooling by normal breezes unless it is ,. determined for certain areas that they are not e appropriate for safety or security reasons. 35. Interior noise levels in the proposed project shall not exceed 45 CNEL in any habitable space. 36, Prior to the issuance of building permits, a program for the sorting of recyclable material form solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. (Amendcd by Staff) 37. All proposed development shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all surface parking areas. + 38. The applicant shall plan and implement a program to encourage the use of high-occupancy vehicles and alternate transportation nodes for employees and visitors to the Four Seasons Hotel, in a manner acceptable to the Planning Director. Said program shall include hotel employees being encouraged to use the OCTD Transit system through the provision of subsidized bus passes or other appropriate means. 39. That the hotel shall provide and encourage transportation to the John Wayne Airport for _ hotel patrons shall be provided and encouraged. - 28 - �3 AA 4, 1983 f City of Newport Beach RQU CALL INDEX 40. That an rooftop or other mechanical equipment Y P shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dDA at the property line and that any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view. 4 41. Signage and exterior lighting shall be of similar design theme throughout the project and shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works DeP artmenta. 42. (Deleted by Staff) 43. That prior to the issuance of building permitsy the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. The Planning Commission recessed at 905 p.m. and • reconvened at 9t15 p.m. At this time Commissioner Kurlandcr stated that he was surprised to see that there was only one (l) adverse comment for the Four Seasons projoct, which was just approved. Commission Kurlander further stated he feels if there are people who are going to complain about a project, they should complain at the Planning Commission, meeting first and not at the City Council level. If these people complain at the Council without going to the Planning Commission, the Council should 9 4 4 admonish those persons for not making their objections cetion s known to the Commission. C s o Y.c h i commissioner Person and ommia i nor Laug 1 n, , Chairman King concurred with Commissioner Kurlander`s i statement. Planning Director Howicker stated that during tha r he received' two more continuances. Item No. 15 and a Bistro, was the first request with Mr. Steve Stern, r enting the applicant, requesting a two week continuance a meeting of August 18, 1983, "e.,.�: in order to respond to co of tho staff report ;•.;,+, which they had just raeeived this a - 29 - � 4 S- COMMISSIONI'RS i NIINUIES r,• u December 6, 1984 {1j. r a a i n i a m ^ s m o m > = City of Newport Beach 2 9 Z a g m m a ROLL CALL INDEX i A. Use Permit No. 3119 (Public Hearing) Item 48 j Request to construct a three level parking structure UP 3119 with parking on the roof for the Four Seasons Hotel, and the acceptance of an environmental document. The Site Plan parking structure will accommodate both guest and valet No. 32 f' parking. Approved ti AND Condition- B. Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) (Discussion) Request to amend a previously approved Site Plan Review which permitted the construction of 325 room Four Seasons Hotel in Newport Center in the C-O-H District. The proposal also ineludedt The establishment of an off-street Larking requirement based upon a demonstrat- ed formulp.t the acceptance of two off-site parking agreementst and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces, tandem parking spaces with valet service and two oversized wall signs. The proposed amendment includes revisions to the approved site plan so as to allow: (1) the reconfigura- tion of two tennis courts, (2) the realignment of the w' main entry drive to the hotel and to Center Drive, and (3) the elimination of the approved valet parking area with tandem parking spaces to be replaced with land- scaping. K LOCATION: A portion of Lot 22, Tract No. 6015, located at 600 Newport Center Drive, on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. Z04EI C-O-H APPLICANT: Four Seasons Newport Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada OMNERt The Irvine Company, Newport Beach �. Mr. Hewicker advised that Condition No. 42 has beer. modified to state that the landscaping plans in the open area of Parcel 2 shall provide a park scenario instead of the previously stated grass. The public hearing opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Neish, representing the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Neish 30 y� COMMISSIONERS 1 � MINUTES � December 6, 1984 ; • •c oa. i ° x'. ° ° ° ° City d Newport Beach a n a n T.w w ROLL CALL INDEX stated that the applicant agrees with modified •�} Condition No. 42 regarding the extensive landscaping] however, the applicant has emphasized that the requestod landscaping on the vacant land area will not be an elaborate as the landscaping around the Four Seasons Hotel. Mr. Noish informed the Planning Commission that the ;t applicant has requested that Conditions No. 12 and 13 be eliminated. The applicant has stated that Condition No. 12, requesting a pedestrian sidewalk between the bus stop and the stairway to the Wells Fargo Building, is not necessary because the applicant is concerned that the sidewalk would not be utilized often enough• to substantiate the costs involved. Mr. Neish stated that the applicant opposes Condition i No. 13, requesting that the steps be eliminated between the hotel and SaAta Cruz Drive, because the most direct route between the hotel and Newport Center Drive requires stepsy otherwise, a switchback path would be 'necessary through that area. ++ Hr. Webb described the proposed pedestrian circulation r plan in the area around the hotel. Mr. Webb stated that the proposed plan will simplify the pedestrian i• pathway around Newport Center and Fashion Island. Mr. Webb explained to Chairuan Winburn that the way the hotel is situated it is very difficult for a.pedestrian to cross over into the Fashion Island area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Eoppelean, Mr. Webb stated that in a public walkway r4 area it is advised to keep steps at a minimum. Mr. Webb commented that either way there is a steep grade .,• from the hotel to the street. Mr. Naish responded to Mr. Wabb'•s comments by stating that the Four Seasons Hotel should not be solely responsible for the pedestrian circulation system f within the hotel area, and that the City has requested that the hotel provide two bus stops which the applicant does not feel is necessary. • The public hearing was closed at this time. t 31 ' COr4\N\ISSIONLRS MINUTES L T T 11 December G, 1984 ' e o i �C i e m i n z T i 1 n = City of Newport Beach o v m. n > w w i T i T i ^• �'• ROLL.CALLE -. INDEX i Commissioner Eithenhofer recoemanded that the top of the parking structure should have soma type of landscaping similar to that required in surface parking areas. Mr. Newicker commented that there would be planting cascading along the side of the parking structure. In response to Commissioner Koppelman`s question stating that the dollar figures in Condition No. 39 vary from the dollar figures in the mod :led Condition No. 39, Me. Patricia Temple replied t....t the current figures were reduced approximately one-half subsequent to the original application consistent with the Fair share Ordinance adopted by the City. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3119 and Site All Ayes Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", with the exception Of. deleting Condition No. 13, and the approval of modified Finding No. 11 and Conditions No. 39 and 42. MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. t S. USE PERMIT N0. 3119 f FINDINGS: ' 1. That the proposed use is consistent with.the Land :•.•,�'•;".;;n Use Elament of the General Plan, and is compatible i `:'k`••.1b:: e °• ° ,; ' with surrounding land uses. f. 32 f CUt�1P�1551UNLR5 � � MINUfLS `^ 7171 Decemhor 6, 1984 • j ` m ° ° ° ° City of; Newport Beach :4 an o•n> ww sm.z;a•spn ROLL-CAL ' +', . INDEX 1 2. That the proposed parking structure with roof-top parking is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is similar to other parking structures in -the area. 1. The approval of Use Permit 110. 3119 will not under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, tnorals, comfort and 1 general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONSI 1. That development shall be In substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations. 2. That, an of-site parking 'agreement shall be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that a minimum of 361 parking spaces shall be provided , for the duration of the proposed use on property located at 690 Nawport Center Drive. 1. That the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems in the proposed parking structure be , subject of further review by the City Traffic Engineer. , C. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 32 (AMENDED) 7INDINGS1 1. The proposed development is consistent with the: General Plan and will not preclude the attainment F ,of General Plan objectives and policies. 2. The proposedAevelopment will not adversely affect t. the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 1. The proposed development does not adversely affect t the 'public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of street and public facilities within the area. 4,.,The proposed development promotas the maintenance ,of,•,. superior. site location characteristics adjoining- ' major thoroughfares of City-wide , . •, importance. 33 COMwM6SIONERS VIAr ® MINUrES • x n December 6, 1984 zG m >m z = _ w m City -of• Newport Beach #s:A m , M T ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the Findings listed in "A" of this Exhibit •) are made to this portion of the project. 6. Adequate parking spaces and related vehicular f circulation will be provided in conjunction with ' the proposed development. 7. The off-site parking areas are so located as to be useful in conjunction with the proposed uses on the building sites. S. Parking on such lots will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 9. Such lots and the building site are in the same ownership. � t 10. The Owner and the City, upon the approval of City Council will execute a written instrument of instrumental approved he to form and content by the City Attorney , providing for the maintenance of the required off-street parking on such lots for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. , 11. That the vacant area resulting from this Site Plan Amendment can be used for passive open space use or for office or residential use transferred to the site from existing allowable development +. rights in Newport Center (8400 sq.ft. office, S 423 due) subject to review and approval of the City. Any use of the site other than that which ' is currently allowed in Newport Center is subject F to review and' approval of a General Plan Amendment. 3 CONDITIONS 1. That development• shall be in substantial a conformance with the approved site plan, sign plans, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in the conditions of approval. 2. That all conditions of the approved Traffic Study be met. 3. That the conditions of Aesubdivision No. 752 be met. 34 �y COA. MSSIONERS MI1UI LS a December 6, 1984 n � ., v ate• n 0 9 9 i - n S x; a" ;,x w T City of Newport Beach ROLL' CALL INDEX r I 4. Construction to meet the requirements of the Uniform •Building Code a California Administrative Code - Titles 19 & 24. S. Any construction on the site should be done in accordance with the height restriction for the area. Said should apply to any landscape materials, signs, flags, etc. as well as structures. } 6. That within thirteen feet of the Newport Center Drive and of Santa Cruz Drive property lines that no fence or combination retaining wall and fence be higher than curb height. 7. That a minimum fifteen feet (151) landscape and sidewalk buffer be maintained between the tennis , court fence end property line along Newport Center ` Drive. S. That withiB seventy-five-five feet of the hotel the - el£ feet 5 ' proposed five and one S ) stucco wall h ( along Newport Center Drive shall be permitted within 11 feet of the property line and a screened ' retaining wall shall be permitted. 9. The project applicant shall obtain an agreement to utilize adjacent parking facilities during the construction period. The applicant shell obtain • . an additional agreement for overflow parking during peak periods, and•for special events. Said agreement(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits. 10. That the Hotel provide a total of 369 standard _ size parking spaces on-site (Parcel No. 3) and { off-site on Parcel No. 2. If additional parking is required, the parking plan may be modified to Increase the number of spaces by allowing up to 25% compact spaces, subject to the approval of the r Planning Commission. 11. That , parking spaces shall be provided for ' handicapped persons. The number and location of-4 j ;-�,.=;;• these spaces shall be providad., in a. manner • approved by the City Traffic Engineer and'Building `"•'• " j• D'epartrtent. . • t 3S COMMISSIONERS ® MINUTES A v U.n December 6, 19B4 s v.N i .m- ai m m m > City"•of: Newport Beach z x ; x ; m m ROLL CALL INDEX 12. That a pedestrian sidewalk be provided between the bun stop on San Joaquin Hills Road and the stairway to the Wells Fargo Building. 13. (Deleted by Planning Commission) 7 14. That the final design of all on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and parking be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Department. 15. All parking areas and the parking structure shall be subject to further review and approval by the Traffic Engineer. This review shall include, but not be limited to, the number and locatien of compact (except for Hotel) and handicap spaces, aisla widths,,access control and maximum slope of raeps•'and parking areas.; 16. 'No access'ghall be allowed from Santa Cruz Drive to the overflow parking lot. 17. That an off-site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that a total of 369 parking spaces shall be provided for the duration of the Four seasons Hotel. The portion of the 369 total spaces which are not i "on-site" shall be located on Parcel No. 2. The term of the agreement shall be equal to the expected life of all structures within Parcel No. 3 oE'Resubdivision No. 752 as may be determined by i the City based upon information supplied by the applicant. i } � 18. That an off-situ parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that 212 parking spaces shall be provided on Parcel No. 1 for the duration of the Wells Fargo Building. Such spaces shill be within 300 feet of the office. The,term of the agreement shall be equal • to the expected life of the Wells Fargo Building as may ,be determined by the City based upon information supplied"by.the applicant. 19. That the.,lighting system shall be' designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to,minimite light spillage and "• glare' to-the adjacent uses. The plans shall be - N• 36 . . 61 COMrVdSSIONERS MrvUiES December 6, 1984 SC m sm .2 ... , 1f. sa a ,z C�nm T o m; City. of::Newport Beach za z mz * m ROLL CALL . st,• INDEX prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineers with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in hie opinion, this requirement .baa been wet. ` 20. The applicant shall provide energy-conserving ''street and parking lot lighting andt•.minimizo decorative or non-functional lighting in-a manner acceptable to Planning Director. 21. r lighting plan shall be aufmltted £orreview by the police •Department to ensure adequate lighting of pedestrian walkways and parking areas}.. 22. The' proposed project shall incorporate •an internal security system (i.e. security guards`, alarma, • access limit: ,after hours) that shall fie reviewed by the Planning Department. -4' 23. That a public utility easement be provided to the city along the easterly property line between 1 Newport Center Drive and Center Drive for an existing Y xietin Cit water Hain unless otherviee approved roved s by the IvbiSc works Department. The configuration } and width'of the easement shall be :;subject to 11 approval of the Public Works Department : 24. That all buildings on the project siLn- shall be equipped with fire suppression systesas "approved by the fire Department. 25. That all access to the buildings be 'approved by the Pire Department. S . 26. That all on-site fire protection (hydrants and ' Piro Department connections) shall be approved by the Piro and Public works Dapartments.': 27. That fire.vehicle access shall be app> ved by the ' Pire'Department. �1 :: . i;; 28. On-site water mains and fire hydrant ydrari r.locations 'ars'to bs•approved by the Piro .and,Public Works* ,�• Departments. 'f k .i *v•29."Thai A non;-standard improvement `agreement be r' "*'� '•1` ;j `%' �` ^• 'executed•' by she hotel owner'. if.;�;;,d6n-standard'` '.`�'. -•' ••" •* "(;a• ', provamen U•as to be constructed over AA City,'•,; f • a-..w i•• v; r. ,uvc,...•k.•` rior:•f. „., •.; }? ", ,i }. f ' •, yn,•••. ;sasements..,Thii agreement shell be•exScutcd p q .e• e. •t �,.,,.; ,Lo1 co of nny •non-standaidlilpsovementa oyer City easement's. 37 1 ....,.»• ......�v-�v-r'tiT.',+.mn�.+w'.r'F<T.<^vSi I�'� •..•,w., 7 . 6y CONK NISSIONLRS ( �,•11T,: ' e o December 6, 1984 4 e m > m s G ° ° City,:of , Newport Beach a m'o'm > wm x P ROLLCALL INDEX 30. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. 31. The• project shall incorporate the use of alternative energy technology • into building designs and systems for heating pools and spas at the hotel. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for'said the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the concerns of this condition have been met. 32. That a system shall be designed to trap kitchen grease and incorporated into the hotel site design, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Building and Utilities Departments. The location of the grease trap shall be easily accessible and a city representative shall be allowed accesi to inspect the system at all times. The japplicaint shall also supply to the City for approval a grease trap maintenance program that provides for ongoing maintenance and inspections. 33. That the proposed building identification logo as shown on the easterly and westerly elevations., between the roof and the sixteenth floor shall not be internally illuminated'. 34. Openable windows for guest room shall be used to allow cooling by normal breezes unless it is determined for certain areas that they are not appropriate for safety or security reasons. 35. Interior noise levels in the proposed project shall not exceed 45 CNEL in any habitable space. 36. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a program for the sorting of recyclable material form solid wastes.shall be developed and approved by,the Planning Department. 37. All proposed development shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all surface parking areas. 38. The applicant shall plan and implement a program ,. to 'encourage 'the use of high-occupancy vehicles and alternate transportation nodes for employees and visitors to the Four Seasons Hotel, in a 'manner acceptable to thi Planning Director. Said 38 ^^'lT'T•ne,�•n,.+rt•nr,.rv•r.*^r•rt�iyn+-m.n,.a+m.•m;+ea.`.1an^'R•rR!�7'^���+'l'IfY•P'".'�,2'�,rc.,SRsaM1�"'R'AT.Cif?�:'rC�S.••�,,,w•�r^+.• r a ..11Jir[.h.R�'AS,L�..::WhW'•MKAILL:IwrNlxti.Y.w'Sign:�U�J11rr�fwn..r.AiWi:.hJl.is1,iHYGrvA.t..+.....YA.l1Wl..�...v..e:r.4 ul.rru.l.r. 'COMMISSIONERS l® W MINUTES LUTES .A . December 6, 1984 O A` n 2 =' a m,z.; e:� City of Newport Beach i A., -'OLL CALL INDEX • program shall include hotel employees being encouraged to use the OCTD Transit system through the provision of subsidized bus passea or other appropriate means. 39. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the a= of $270,671.50 Ahall have been deposited with a the City. In addition, a balance of $213,828.50 shall be deposited with the City prior to r occupancy of the hotel. This condition shall be interpreted as satisfying all noise wall, traffic signal and traffic circulation system.improvement obligations of the Four, Seasons :Hotel as previously set forth 'under Traffic,; Study Conditions No. 1 and' 2, Resubdivision.No. 752 Conditions No. 23, 24, 25, 28i 40, 41 and 421 Site Plan Raview No. 32 (Amended) Conditions No. 2 and :e 3, and the Resolution ,adopting ,General Plan Amendment No. '82-2: 40. That any' rooftop or other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner As to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line and, that any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view. 41. Signagn and exterior lighting shall be of similar . desigm theme throughout the project and shall ba approved 'by the Planning and Public works , Departments. 42. The portion of Parcel 2 not developed with surface parking or parking structure shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs, groundcover and paving similar in character to the hotel grounds. Pedestrian , access shall be provided to allow use of this area y by bath hotel patrons and other users of Block t 600. The landscape plan shall be prepared by a t licensed landscape architect and be reviewed by ) the Planning and Parks, Beaches and Recreation F Departments. The landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy } for the hotel. 43. That prior to the issuance of'buiiding permits, the •fire Department ,shall review the'proposed r plans and may raquire automatic fire eprinklcr protection. , 39 :M1Y..N..b^.'vA�5L�1:^:A1L1L'71'Y�L'}�Aa�tn3rL':Su.".%-•.5•...�µ^%+•�%wo..N+•F�u�.:.uwu✓.`1'.'u-vwu.�.a.•UVLLUu.w.�•ea.....,rwr..rt.,., i IMM COMMISSIONERS MINUTES December 6, 1984 ^'f,'�i';I^ �',4+'.� i :••m caS:'.%';�{�b;`is•:.,,^ .n. •• , s p•a.zr n.z - °x Y ° ° ° ° City' of Newport' Beach pm o m > s p s a x * m ROLL CALL • INDEX 44. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 45. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 46. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 47. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the.california Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 48. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans.prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recom:endations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic.investigation —'.of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the •.'"Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size . "•shaeti shall be furnished to the Building Department. 49. ,.That erosion control measures shall be done on any 'exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or . as approved by the Grading Engineer. Planning Commission recessed at 11315 p.m^ and reconvened at 11115 P.m. 40 COMMIS S It,NERS MINUTES AulI 8. 1441 •s w,,,ro . ;F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX LOCH' A portion of Lon 11,Tract No.91J9;loaned at 2241 West Coast Iliglmvay, on the ; southwesterly side of West Coils[ I lighway, hctw'een Tustin Avenue ;utd.Dnver Drive, in lie Mariner's Mile Specific flan Alegi. ZONE: SIx1owcill APPLICANT: Ju 'laicc,, tile., Costa plot —� — OWNER: Inrry Cunu. Ncw;}lr llenclt Willi;trn I.tycoek, Cuncat Pl a flog \I;uutivr stued Ihnt the applicant fur Exception Permit \u•41 fiats royucs�esl\m this item be removed from c:dend;tr. `yea'" . . . . Motion w'ns made mtd voted on ut remove IiCccptiull ALaant; 41 frotn.c:dcud:r. MO'1'lO\ CARRIM). Site flan Review No.321AnlCllil9.4)_WUL±L11Si1f jW Ilan Ih..'. Requesto permit the construction of two illutninntcd'idcntiftcation SaR 321, volt signs to be mounted :tt the top of the Pour Scosons Hotci facility. 711c previous Site Plain Review No.32 permitted only two Approve 'dentificatioq logo signs at the top of the building. 'Iac Sign Code permits n maxitn un-of 3 wall signs per,building. LOCATION: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 83.715(Rcsobdivision No. 752) Incucd Rt 690 Newport Center Drive,on life northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive rind Saimaa Cruz Drive, in Newport Center. i ZONE: C•0.1I ' I APPLICANT, ne Irvine Company, Newport Beach OWNER: Same ns npplicnnl ' •15• • i t V� • 0 COMIAiSSIONERS MIN Us y.�,, •� Angust R• 1471 r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX ` I 'Ilia public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Neish appeared before the Planning Cuminlnsiun oil behalf of the applicant, and lie concurred with the finJinys and e conditions in Exhibit"A". Y There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public - "�-- hearing was closed at this time. •9,tirm Motion was made ;Intl voted on to approve Site Ilan Review No. •sr.A 32(Amended)subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit"A". :unv.n6 • MOTION CARRIED. g? Finding gr 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the proposed signs will not significantly impact any existing views nor detract front the existing skyline view. 3. That ilia proposed signs are keeping with the character of the neighborhood and uvrounding sites and tare not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of their surroundings and of Ilia City. 1. The proposal development is consistent with the intent or ilia conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council in conjunction with the approval of Site Plan t#,• Rcview No.32 and Site Plan Review No. 32(Amended). S. That the granting of this exception permit will not be contrary to the purpose or Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code and will not be materially detrimental to the health, c•` safety,comfort or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or t improvements in the neighborhood, or to the,general welhtrc of ilia City. + %�."E . . .. .. ..r s .t e•. »iu . .a § tl f r � .�Gt')t6i ip ryr SQL• 6� C A ....•..........4......v.A.n...�f•...�.w.rGw:.srrtw:.��fW.11SA.`Lt�1%�CCa':1'4'L771f1.+IWu �¢iLay�li.Yf•�W�nY . COMMISSIONERS ® e MINUTES i 4 e August 8, 1991 }r CITY OF 'NEWPORT BEACH _ iOE CALL I Jill I INDEX • i ! I C Y 1. 'Ilhal development shall be in sub.Iantial conformaacc with t the approved elevations, sections and details, except a% noted hcluw. 2-` T$at all applicable conditions of approval of Site flan Review No. 32 and Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) shall remain in effect. a 3. *11W the number of wall idcnfjficatian signsshall be limited ! to the two logo signs (176_ square feet in arcs each as existing)and file ta'o pmpnied wall signs shall be limited in a maximum of 200 'square feet in arcs each, unless an amcndnhent to Site Plan Review No.32,or;in exception to - the-Sign'Codc is approved in the future. 4. That the identification signs shall be illuminated only by back lighting car by tin external light source. 5. That this approval of Site Platt Review No.32(Amended) shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Nc+s7hort hutch Municipal Codc. PLm Mncndmc0L4z(JJ_(Puhlic I(caring) item Ho.(, tcqucst to tonal, n amendment to the Land Use Iilcracm of MIA he General Plan sn as in:de properties on the northerly (0) nd easterly sides of i Ido 1'ar 1nti•c, from :t mixture of Single. t111202h _ rurally Attached and Recreational anti-Ni•nine Commercial to Ott Single-Family Attached;and to revise tilt dwe li lng it nlincatiun. tn12113l AND �� ,+rovud t .17. i I� •�'t'. fiw:Tx. In p. A' A+ .., ! •tin.e . . ?, n. f. . 6� ��-Jv`�c3C%e fit• San JOB in �-I�►(s Road IdiGe ln3D tku� ►'E Ce,n cr ce. lnoo trort Cent �r C2s7 66� PaYI�ivlrl �I�2 ve b�Z� (23) Pay.�i�ty S�e Cen er va O�Ylet r t4I)� 630 0-7) 610 big USX Pawki„q Bld -349- ��kev dour��eBE�ns �-lo+mil S��e (8) oak �1p �pov�{ Cev►�er Dr. G� 00ca ca id VU66rA) ��Q iall ace Lo'j'- dam. (o30 or-WI� C°en+er Dr. OLMK 600 f 4RLOPDPT GFn1T-R DR. 3,141 RaU k,ei ces 1=xks i nl FAAKI Q6 SOIZVEY (see pale 4v5 r",r.+) (2110) 11o4ace parki*Aq spaces - I�2— �arkin� S{•►^cx�•�v� s�ces WPA Traffic Engineering,, Inc. ® g TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Mr.John Douglas Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1788 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 SUBJECT. FOUR SEASONS HOTEL EXPANSION Dear Mr. Douglas: Enclosed please find a revised report that addresses traffic concerns related to the proposed Four Seasons Hotel expansion located in the City of Newport Beach. This report is based upon information provided by the City of Newport Beach, previous studies, field reviews and standard reference materials. We trust that this study will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WPAA�TRAFFIC /ENGINEERING, INC. Weston S. Prin e, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer 1 OF NFWPORT QEn�• State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 DEC 21 1993 1'tA WSP:HN 7$�g�lu�lll]21112�31415t6 #83041 ! .10 non r ._.,_j.-r .. .• .. _ .. 0 FOUR SEASONS HOTEL EXPANSION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECEMBER 22, 1993 Prepared By WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. 1 ( • • A TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................... 1 II, TRIP GENERATION ................................................I 1 III. TRIP DISTRIBUTION .................................................1 2 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES .... 2 V. PARKING ............................... 10 VI. SUMMARY ............................. 11 VII. MITIGATIONS ..........., 12 APPENDIX A - ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS' APPENDIX B - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 72 1 • PROJECT DESCRIPTION Four Seasons Hotel is located on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, which is known as Block 600 of Newport Center. The hotel is proposing to add a 9,000 square foot ballroom usable for meetings and other functions with a maximum occupancy of 600. In addition, a 3,528 square foot function lawn area is being added to be used for weddings, luncheons, special events, etc. Vehicular access to the proposed ballroom and function lawn area would be via Center Drive. Valet parking would be available at a motor court which is located directly east of the proposed ballroom area. Vehicles would be parked in a parking garage located at 630 Newport Center Drive, which is directly north of the motor court. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project site in relationship to the surrounding street system. Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan. It is estimated that the project will be completed by the end of Year 1994. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates for hotel uses are generally based upon the number of guest rooms and includes consideration of restaurant, retail and meedng/ballroom facilities. There is no set trip generation rate for a particular facility within a hotel, such as in this case a ballroom facility and function lawn area. In order to determine the effect of the increased meeting/ballroom and function lawn area, discussions were held with the City of Newport Traffic Engineer to determine the trip generation assumptions most applicable to the proposed ballroom facility within the Four Seasons Hotel. Those assumptions used for the ballroom facility would also apply to the function lawn area, due to the fact both facilities provide the same service. Since this is a unique condition, a worst case scenario would have the ballroom facility at capacity of 600 persons, non-hotel guests, and all arriving during the AM peak hour and leaving during the PM peak hour. This condition cannot be anticipated to occur on any regular basis and is not a realistic assumption for trip generation. A scenario of 400 �3 73 A g q�Sl S p< _ _ B,pist Sl p� Sr No Scale UN1VfRs��y O� Z� OPT COQst c > OR m , FORD RD �o o� oa a o sqN Y o� DRNTA BARBARA ✓pqG G'y PROJECT o tv ceN SITE oJ�v i A Z pq C/F,C e�ptA COAST DAY\SHORE OR 4rs'DF OR °P PROJECT LOCATION SPA BUR ENGINEERING, INC. =le%l v �yl • yr oiai•v l ------------ UP gm It G lit` '. ., �; I �'�y p. . , .'�"Er� zilo I �� ••• �• !t�.•, } 1 to 0 fin•. • J A Ll � Al i40 rOUR SEASONS NEWPORT CENTER BALLROOM ADDITION rr�i m SITE PLAN c -2- persons was assumed to be more realistic, with 25 percent to be hotel guests and 75 percent wouldbe non-hotel guests with an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5. This assumption resulted in 200 peak direction trips during the peak hour and an estimated 10 percent or 20 vehicles would be in the opposing ingress/egress direction for the ballroom facility. The function lawn area, which is approximately 39 percent the size of the ballroom facility, would generate approximately 39 percent of the traffic that the ballroom facility generates. The function lawn area would generate 80 peak direction trips during the peak hour and an estimated 10 vehicles would be generated 'in the opposing ingress/egress directions. Table 1 summarizes the estimated trip generation for both the ballroom and function lawn areas. Due to the type of project and factors discussed, it is assumed that the 2.5, hour peak and peak hour volumes would be approximately equivalent. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution percentages were based upon prev iously completed distributions in the area, the location of the trip attractors, type of land use, proximity of freeways, and the surrounding street system. Figure 3 illustrates the resulting distribution percentages which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. The project generated peak 2.5 trip ends were then assigned to the road system based on the distribution percentages and the proposed project access. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES The City of Newport Beach was contacted to determine the intersections that were to be analyzed. There are a total of ten intersections that were analyzed in this study and they are listed in Table 2. The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" from the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized for each of the study intersections. If project generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing, regional growth and 7b • -3- TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION Four Seasons Hotel Expansion TIME TRIP ENDS AM PM Peak Hour BALLROOM FACILITY In 200 20 Out 20 200 FUNCTION LAWN FACILITY In 80 10 Out 10 80 2.5 HOUR PEAK TOTAL BALLROOM AND FUNCTION LAWN FACILITY In 280 30 Out 30 280 3io 310 7 � \73 BR'sro rai t 15% s c sT 10% sr No Scale R�sro` 30% 10 S��y sr UNN 6R ' 30%� P 10% [ 10% 40% I O� 125% JEE 40% ti LEGEND 0 -+ = STUDY INTERSECTIONS y 35% cpgS T O > D c R m FORD RD eo �40% o� 40% 35% 0 10% s O 10% 9y x o DRNTA BARBARA ✓pq S% ��i a PROJECT �� cEHr SITE ,cam 5% 15% b% W INT. A 26% 35% A u% y 10% Apr SP Frc \ 9y COAST 26% �.r�\ 9 BAY SHORE DR SrD f OR °p 125% ( 5% s� DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION 79 SPA Iffi 1C NNGfNEIE) INC. FIwURE 3 -4- TABLE 2 STUDY INTERSECTIONS Four Seasons Hotel Expansion 1. Bristol Street North &Jamboree Road 2. Bristol Street &Jamboree Road 3. Coast Highway & Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive 4. Coast Highway & Bayside Drive 5. Coast Highway &Jamboree Road 6. Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road 7. Jamboree Road & Ford-Eastbluff Drive 8. Jamboree Road & Mac Arthur Boulevard 9. Mac Arthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road 10. Mac Arthur Boulevard & Ford Road �y -5- committed project traffic on any approach to any of the selected intersections, then additional analyses are required which consists of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses. Projects may be approved when the ICU value for an intersection will not exceed 0.90 or the ICU value does not change when the project is added. The basis for the comparison includes existing traffic, regional growth and approved/committed project traffic. A list of the committed projects is provided in Table 3. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1994, the analyses were completed for the Year 1995 as required by the Ordinance. The proposed project peak 2.5 hour volumes for the AM and PM were distributed'onto the street system, and these trips were added to the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis". Appendix A contains the data for the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 4. The criteria established by the City of Newport Beach indicated that any intersection where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds one percent of existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. Review of Table 4 indicates that seven of the study intersections exceed the maximum one percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. The seven study intersections of Bristol St. NJJamboree Rd., Bristol St./Jamboree Rd., Jamboree RdJSan Joaquin Hills Rd., Jamboree RdJEastbluff Ford, Jamboree Rd./MacArthur Blvd., MacArthur Blvd./San Joaquin Hills Rd.and MacArthur BlvdJFord Rd. were further analyzed to determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis"forms-from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined including traffic increases due to regional growth and previously approved projects. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that the three study intersections, of Bristol St. North/Jamboree Rd., Bristol St./Jamboree Rd.and Jamboree Rd./Fastbluff- Ford are projected to have an ICU value of 0.91 or higher. The other study TABLE 3 COMMITTED PROJECT LIST Four Seasons Hotel Expansion Hughes Aircraft #1 Far West Savings & Loan Aeronutronic Ford Back Bay Office Boyle Engineering Cal Canadian Bank Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport Macarthur Court Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza 3701 Birch Office Newport Place Bank of Newport Bayside Square Sea Island Baywood Apartments Harbor Point Homes Roger's Gardens Seaview Lutheran Plaza Rudy Baron Quail Business Center 441 Newport Blvd. Martha's Vineyard Valdez Coast Business Center Koll Center NPT No. 1 Ross Mollard Hughes Aircraft #2 Flagship Hospital Big Canyon 10 Fun Zone Marriott Hotel St. Andrews Church Pacific Mutual #84 Allred Condos Morgan Development Four Seasons Hotel Univ. Ath. Club TPP Block 400 Medical Amend.No. 1 MacArthur Ct Amend. No. 2 Ford Aero Carver Granville Office Corona Del Mar Homes Big Canyon Villa Apts. 1400 Dove Street 1100 Quail Street Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A Rosan's Development Block 500 NPTCTR Project Newport Aquatics Center 2600 E Coast Hwy Jasmine Park Newporter Inn Expansion Fashion Is. Renaissance CDM Senior Project Point Del Mar Pacific Club Newport Seacrest Apt. 3800 Campus Dr. Hoag Cancer Center Edwards Newport Center Seaside Apts (Mesa II) Victoria Station 3760 Campus Drive Newport Imports Mariners' Mile Marine Center 15th Street Apartments Seaside Apartments III Newport Bay Retirement Inn Newport Classic Inn Mariners Church Expansion McLachlan-Newport Place 1501 Superior Medical Fashion Island #2 Newporter Resort Expand. Newport Lido Med. Center Villa Point Shokrian 15th Street Apartments Newport Diagnostic #85 Andrew Restaurant Balboa/Washington Newport Import Restaurant 28th Street Marina Project Ambrosia Restaurant Calty/Toyota Expansion Our Lady Queen of Angels Zonta Club Residential Villa Point II Taco Bell Pacific Bell Site Newport Village Castaways Marina Koll Center - Carls Jr. Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza & West Burgess Commercial Center Harbor Pacific Plaza Hoag Hospital Extension Amendment No. I Ford Aero Amendment No. 1 N. Ford Irvine Project Newport Dunes Bayview City of Inane Development gl -7- TABLE 4 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Four Seasons Hotel Expansion PEAK 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES IDCMON B- SB EB WB �MPM phi PIS �M PI►i Bristol Street North &Jamboree Road 0.13 1.44 1.04 0.06 - - - - Bristol Street &Jamboree Road 0.20 2.00 1.75 0.11 1.27 0.13 - - i Coast Highway & Dover-Bayshore Drive - - 0.56 0.06 0.55 0.06 0.10 0.54 Coast Highway & Bayside Drive - - - - 0.62 0.07 0.11 0.58 Coast Highway &Jamboree Road - - 0.19 '0.84 0.66 0.09 - - Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.55 0.06 2.20 0.18 - - 1.67 8.24 Jamboree Road & Ford-Eastbluff Drive 0.21 1.72 2.67 0.19 - - - - Jamboree Road & MacArthur Boulevard 0.15 1.75 2.00 0.14 0.07 0.90 1.04 0.01 MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills 0.19 0.03 2.09 0.20 2.00 5.25 - - MacArthur Boulevard' & Ford Road 0.24 2.1-3 1.88 0.17 - - - - U�' TABLE 5 ICU SUMMARY Four Seasons Hotel Expansion EXISTING EXISTING + GROWTH EXISTING + GROWTH + COMMITTED 1993 + GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT INTERSECTION EXISTING + COMMITTED + PROJECT WIMITIGATIONS Bristol Street North & Jamboree Road AM Peak Hour 0.74 0.86 0.87 - PM Peak Hour 0.85 0.98 0.98 • Bristol Street & Jamboree Road AM Peak Hour 0.74 0.97 0.98 0.97 PM Peak Hour 0.70 0.88 0.89 - Jamboree Road & • San Joaquin Hills Road AM Peak Hour 0.58 0.73 0.76 - PM Peak Hour 0.49 0.65 0.66 - Jamboree Road & Eastblufl Drive-Ford Road AM Peak Hour 0.57 0.78 0.79 PM Peak Hour 0.74 0.95 0.95 i m TABLE 5,(Cont.) ICU SUMMARY Four Seasons Hotel Expansion _ EXISTING EXISTING + GROWTH EXISTING + GROWTH + COMMITTED • 1993 + GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT INTERSECTION EXISTING + COMMITTED + PROJECT W/MTTIGATIONS Jamboree Road & MacArthur Boulevard AM Peak Hour 0.60 0.83 0.83 - PM Peak Hour 0.70 0.90 0.90 - MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road AM Peak Hour 0.73 0.87 0.87 - PM Peak Hour 0.67 0.81 0.84 - • MacArthur Boulevard & Ford Road AM Peak Hour 0.65 0:73 0.73 - PM Peak Hour 0.66 0.73 0.75 - • No mitigation measures are needed. The project does not increase the ICU value. �o intersections would all have ICU values at or below the 0.90 level. As shown in Table 5, the study intersections of Bristol St. North/jamboree and Jamboree Rd./Eastbluff-Ford have ICU values of 0.98 and 0.95, respectively. These ICU values were maintained from the existing plus growth plus committed project conditions and did not increase with the project; therefore, the project would have no traffic impact. The intersection of Bristol Street and jamboree Road had an increase in the ICU value from 0.97 to 0.98 when the project was added. PARKING A parking study' was completed of the existing parking facilities located within the 600 block of Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach by I.inscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers. This study was referenced for the parking analyses. The total parking provided within Block 600 is 3,141 parking spaces,2 which provides parking for the addresses of 600, 610, 620, 630, 660 Newport Center Drive and The Four Seasons Hotel. The total square feet for these buildings, excluding The Four Seasons Hotel is 788,650 In order to determine the parking requirements for the buildings located within Block 600, a parking ratio of 1 space per 375 square feet would need to be utilized, which was approved by the City of Newport Beach on November 18, 1976 (Use Permit No. 1805).4 A total of 2,103 parking spaces are required for the office buildings. The parking requirements for the exsiting Four Seasons Hotel is 369 parking spaces, which are based upon The Four Seasons Parking Covenant s ' Block 600 Parking Study: Linscott, Law &Greenspan, Engineers; November, 1993. 2 DAL Table 2 S Ibid.. Table 1 * DAL Table 3 5 Ibid. �h • S -11- It was brought to our attend on that a Family Fitness Center would be added to the Block 600. This use would require an additional 74 parking spaces above the office use requirements.6 The total parking available(3,141)less the required parking for the block 660 office buildings, the proposed Family Fitness Center and the existing Four Seasons Hotel (2,546) leaves a parking surplus of 595 parking spaces available within Block 600. The addition of the ballroom facility would delete 41 surface parking spaces that would' need to be replaced. The City of Newport Beach parking code for assembly areas is 1 space per 35 square feet. The proposed addition of the ballroom facility (9,000 SF)along with the function lawn area (3,528 SF) would require a total of 358 additional parking spaces that would be required. This would total 399 additional parking spaces needed for the proposed project. As stated previously, the parking supply located within Block 600 has a surplus of 595 parking spaces which would adequately handle the 399 ,parking spaces needed for the proposed project. SUMMARY This study has examined the traffic factors related to the proposed Four Seasons Hotel ballroom expansion project. Estimates have been made of traffic to be generated by the expansion and the ability of the road system to accommodate the added traffic. The analysis was completed to conform to the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Parking was also examined. The following are the principal findings of the study. 1. The proposed'expansion is estimated to generate 310'(280 In, 30 Out)AM peak hour trip ends and 310 (30 In, 280 Out) PM peak hour trip ends. 6 Per a conversation with Linscott, Law and Greenspan,who did a parking study for r the Family Fitness Center. q6 0 0 0 -12- The 2.5 hour period AM and PM trip ends would be equivalent to the peak hour trip ends. 2. A total of ten (10) study intersections were examined. Seven of the ten study intersections did not pass the "One Percent" test. 3. ICU analyses were completed for the seven intersections. Three of the seven study intersections had ICU values more than 0.90 during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. A parking analyses was performed and a total parking demand of 399 parking spaces would be needed with the .ballroom and function lawn expansion. The parking supply located within Block 600 would adequately handle the additional parking spaces. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The project traffic does not increase the ICU values from those shown under existing plus growth plus committed project conditions for the intersections of Bristol St. North/Jamboree and Jamboree/Eastbluff--Ford; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed for the proposed project at these intersections. 2. The ICU value for the intersection of Bristol St./Jamboree Rd. increases from an unacceptable 0.97 to 0.98 during the AM peak hour only. In order to mitigate the intersection during the AM peak hour, a restriction should be placed on the function lawn area. No activities should be allowed before 10:00 AM on the weekdays only. APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _)AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 8370 Southbound Na1810 ?51 n&9 Eastbound i 1 Westbound �— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 0q DATE: - - - e 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes .based on Average Winter pring 19 92)PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected is of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6716 135 9 49 -7 200 CGS' a 112 out Dun q 83 1 939 Eastbound Westbound 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 2, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ,DATE: Den lc r-r. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average Winter pring 19 93 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume �jVolume Volume Volume Vol we Northbound 4961 1005-975� southbound 951 ' l �.p0 '� /�� ' �//-- - 1 Eastbound 5402 Westbound 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 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 4- a l L F 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Vol—um—e—s-5—ased on AVerage lnt'er pring 9 93 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak Ds Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 2y Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume ! Volume f 5:• Northbound 4671 9 ?qe 5�v7 5� = 112 C n�. Southbound 1985 7T YQ . ! 09. '67 W 27• 2 is j.... J }. Eastbound 5952 ! -8' •991 (P95I ! 70 Westbound 0- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast H / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Vol—um-e-s--Fa—sed on AVerage Winter/Spring 19 93)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 297 —�' T �Q j •� Southbound 2280 -G- 2140 9�19& 1 5 14 Eastbound 4164 (p I 7 3 g 507/�0 5� 0 '5 '.g i Westbound 4392 / �7 /7 S17 5�{ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected �l Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Q 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. VI 3 DATE: t 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast H / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr_ (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average Winter/Spring 93)PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing, Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 22 Hour Peak ',24 Hour Peak2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume nV.olume Northbound 277 '0 ; ,t7 southbound 2910 / �-7 1 1)0/5�-/Q 31 �2 Eastbound 4230 / Gb �0�j�` 150 i �7 i1—Westbound 6757 27 v�Q 7 43 / b 43 —7 O i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than, 1% of Projected Peak 22 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. qq DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Vol-u-me-s-Fa—se-d on Average Winter/Spring 1992 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1A of Projected Project Direction Peak 2;1 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak n Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume Northbound 965 ^tom 12-6 99 / /0[ 1 Southbound 208 $ 151 /3� a Eastbound 5900 'ij p �D'TV Westbound 3856, (4o �42 14354 1 ram, Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected l�J Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 11% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 92 )PM Peak 29 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2g Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1374 '� 2 Southbound 179 .$/ — 21�9 L�(2g 14 Eastbound 6446 ?U00 4 r -7/ 2 i 5 / 1 Westbound 63 8 ��� / -7'U 7 72 Tz Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-,, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd (Existing Traffic Volumesbased on Average Winter/Spring 19 93)AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1S of Projected Project Direction Peak N Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2+1 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 1494 "1 50 1��5 Southbound 1860 I 711 2l/8 2'// t ' /n Eastbound 5212 I I0 (pp �OT � i Westbound 2737 I II � I �`57 ram{ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected �I Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. �7 DA TE: 0 a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected. Protect Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 2y Hour Peek 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1076 ) 120� ' ' L� southbound 3975 2�li g10 �V 7 '50 Eastbound 4761 199. 979 5831— 58 5 + Westbound /&LI G/4 i/7 i/O , / ! ^ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 9� __ DATE; 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 19 92) AM Peak 22 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 2k Hour Peak n Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3684 / 0 50?9 51 2g Southbound 3844 j 1 I I a 5�/117 Eastbound 758 Westbound 783 •e— �Q 0 9 1 '� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. q-r DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring- 92) , M Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume ' /Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3401 207 � � 25 7" 7, �5P 'Vy Southbound 5055 Q 3 3 ID l.� I �Z Eastbound 414 8 24 L Westbound 1558 $ 95 1 1l053 / / I�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 required. n 1ysis is � pb ' DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/FORD—EASTBLUFF DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Verage inter pring 1993�AM Peak 2)1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Pnofects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4161 /(09 /:Z / 5(003 5(o I 3056 / 98o T��jCf `t"L- i 0— southbound Eastbound 937 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. /01 DATE: PROJECT: �cA 41s I< 1) n'i"�l_ r/l�t� r. 1G �►.) 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd Ford RL Eastbluff r (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Verage inter pr ng. M Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1w. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4932 Southbound 4 614 / 3 7Z U 17Q2- 60 2- _ Eastbound 1097 Westbound 499 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 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. , ay DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BLVD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring _ AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Northbound 2841 r7� L�z� 3T 921 1 Southbound 1166 '7 ) 9io 2�`{� 2! � �- Eastbound 3257 ,,&15 //7 J Westbound 2014 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: nnn irrr A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BLVD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 3_ PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 15 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 ''V//ollume eg Northbound 1831 � ' /_�jg1 0c) 2� ` A` Southbound 2876 �''-7/ �pO7p�/4 '3j d 3 / 1 /5p Eastbound 2208 "7T ! 997 �3� �l i hO { Westbound 3631 7J 11 $5(a 45&0 11 W Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysi's is required. Idq DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93) AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peek 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume V olume Northbound 2928 Y Southbound 3785 ca L17 / T Eastbound 516 � 12 i Westbound 1647 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.1-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ pM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Prolects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume volume Northbound 255'8 3�98, / �2 Southbound 4623 2g2- 5 /p 550 Eastbound 1825 Westbound 1121 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic 'Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. job DATE: A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93 AM Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 15 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak Zy Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak lu Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound, 3811 IL 32- p t o southbound 4539 271a Eastbound 454 `f741 11 Westbound 2028 52 VC,0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. /07 DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis . Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93 )PM Peak 2h*our Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected h,of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Vollume Northbound 4038 "_'�/� �&o Southbound 5626 3�3 CG /40 LOr70 �� i 1 Eastbound 697 2O 7/7 p i 1 Westbound 1335 `"8— 3 UP I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES � 09 BR419DAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH i JARBDREE ROAD 419D EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AN ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTiNGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICWAITTEDI PROJECTED [PROJECT IPROJECTI IHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK OR I V/C 1' GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVoluae I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volum I Ratio I Voluae I Volune Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I 1 I I I I I I Votuae I I I I...........................................................................................i NL 1 16001 1 9991 0.62 - I go 10•&97k1 -0- 10.09. i...........................................................................................I I NT I N.S. 1 1 29421 1 '59 1.4'7.1 1...........1. � 1 1 I.................................................. ..............I i MR I R.S.' I...........................................................................................i I SL I I I I i 1 .91 1 1 -6L- i I - I...................................................................................�............1..II l ST i 40 1 i ... 1 / 37� 6400 1 ...... •........ :5--.- 1 I SR i 1 355 I 1 yp I............................................................................................ I EL I I I I 1 1 6- 1 1 -0- I 1 I...........................................................................................I I ET I I 1 11 1 1 2 1 1 -0- 1 1 I...........................................................................................I I ER I I I I 1 1 G6 1 1 -0- 1 1 I...........................................................................................I I WL I 1 1' 1 1 1 2- 1 1 -6L 1 1 i........................................................................................... I Wr I I I I 1 1 2 1 1 'a I I I...........................................................................................i I WR 1 I I I I I 3 I I -0- 1 i I........................................................................................... 1EXISTING . 1 .......................... . .. i (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,g& 1 1 I...........................................................................................1 (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 Q,t7 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_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems iaprovement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project taprovements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system faproveeents PROJECT /� •+'S 0 FORK 11 OR4190AH / SE>���1` I1 ��L �XPA-l�ISjOA� I ! � o F . • BR4190PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH i JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM _-_-_••--.__-••_-•--•-•_--_••-----------------------•--_----_------------------------...---.. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGI ORAL ICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI lHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolure I V/C I I ICapacitylCapaeftyl Volume I Ratio I Volume I VOLUMa 1w/0 PrOjectl •I Ratio I I I I I I I I I vptuae I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I NL 1 1600 1 1 854 1 0.53 • I &q 1 0, 58 A4 & 10,58* I--------------------------..............--------------------------------------------------- I NT I N.S. I 1 2018 1 1 -ell 1 -'/07 1 1 2g I I ....................-----------------------------------------------------.-----------------I I Nit i I I I I I i------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I SL I I I I I I@ I 1 e- I I I------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------I i ST 1 1 1220 1 445 1 35/ ) a.T� _ 3_„ o• 4 I--------� 6400 I-------------&>> 0.32 �--------I-�/D --13 I 8' I I l .EL---i..........................1 .........._........�......--...........�......... i...........................................................................................1 I ET I I I I I 1 .0- 1 1 4a I i i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ER I I I I I I & I I $ I I ---------------------------------------- -------I I WL I I I I I 1 Q' 1 1 -& I I --------i-----------------i-._...-.i-.....--------.-.i_-�-----i...------.-i.---0..........1 Yi 6- 1 ............................................................o------------..1 I WR I I I I I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTING 1 0.85 1 1 I............................................................................ 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0. 9? I I 1...................................................................................10, .. . 1EX1STING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT T.C.U. 10,971 ............................................................................................. 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 1_1 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 iaprovements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: No Wcke;Arie IP ICU PROJECT , L ' I—fQ FORK II OR419DOPX �11 • BR417OAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRiSTOL STREET t JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES' BASED OR AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING .•.-.....-..--1993 AM ....................................................................... .... I EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTINOIEXISTIn REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT INovement Ce�Msty Capacity Voluime ;� Ratio Volume VolW; GROWTHume iw/o P ate(eoct�Voluae Ratio II I I VOL ........................................................................................... I NI. � NT I . . ..i........i- •2336 .'... i_•147.1•ggli.FF��Q.�jg•jf1.12.. . • - ....-' 8000 .................I O.z9. .. 9 I •.. �-• io- NK ........ .. .. , 'i. .5L_..�.::....�..... I....................................................�:....... st I 4800 I' -1 440 i 0.09 1 9 1 311 1 0. 18 1 2$ 1.0.1-$_�'- I.................. ............................ttsc ........ ....34/O......................... I 1 I I I I 1 $ 1 1 -6- 1 P I ` � •Ei -•? 3200 i.._.....i....2�3 0.45 i........i.........i. .........i.......I 1.. i.......................................................�3_. .....I......�.�..�./.... ------I ER 1 3200 1 1 935 1 0.29 1 12'Lg 10.56 I bT 10,39 1 ............................................................ .. .... ... .. I UL I i I I I 1 -9- 1 1 - I ........_...!.................!........!..... ..I........!.................I..... ._ .. I vR I I I I 1 1 •A- 1 1 •9- 1 I I...........................................................................................1 (EXISTING 1 0.74 1 I 1............................................................................ (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED V/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 . . q' 1 I.....................................................................................-/I��� .1 (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I D. I ............................................................................................. 1_1 Project + 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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems iaprovemgnt Witt 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 FORA It BR4170AN S�f�OI-�5 'Nri'i�L. �P.4NSJON BR417OPM. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET L JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGI EXISTING I REGIONAL ICOMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI lHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projeetl I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I......................................................................... ................. I NL I I I I I I -0 I ......_. I_:& I ......I I-------------------•--....------....-----------,-//-----.----r-�/---------- L..... I . NT - 8000 I 1 2077 ' 0.26 ( `7 I 'Ti✓1 _� ��► r'�L-.I jf,;[3i7� •................... I . ...i...................................i---------o.4...i ........._i..._...i .._... sL I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I sT 1 4800 I 1 10771 0.22 1 /�� 1 36,11 6,,%) 1 3 I Q.�o I i---------------------------- --- -------------------------------------------------i I SR I I I I I I I& I 1 .0 1 I I------------------------------- - ----------------------..------- --.-------------.---.. EL I J 3200 1 1 --9 J 0.44 I 1 I ET I 1 541 I 1 /,zo I--------------------------------------------------------------------./.------------. ._....I ER 1 3200 I 1 1404 1 0.44 R 1 110 I 0•17/ I 9 16, 1 . I-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------........ I NL I I I I I 1 -0- 1 1 & i I i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WT I I I I I 1 �9- I I & I I I........................................................................................... i WR I I I I I I .a 1 1 ,61- 1 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTING 1 0.70 1 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- i (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0 a I I I......................................................................................:...p1. 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ID G / ............................................................................................. Project + 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 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 . I — _L ��Ir1R�s FORK JI BR4170PH ��3 y JASO4SAN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD SD45 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL CITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Movementl Lanes Lanes PK MR YJC GROWTH = OMM PROJECT V/C Ratio lVolune V/C ICapacity� I capacity Vottm Rsifo Volune Volume w/o Project Ratio II I Volune I. .. I . _..-. i................i......_... .i....•O. 1t.....3....iI.5-S 3�i1• ..M. 1 1600 n0.02 - 0,02t ,@- V ga • ••I... i........i... . • 3 •'..9 • ..MY 480D 15271 0. 2 0. W' A, @10' AP ... 1NR 060. if9. 00$ -••----...----•-----•-•--•................................................................. l SL I 320D 1 1 565 1 0.13 * I 27 1 el-// ^41Z I0'a ........................................................................................... ST 1 4800 1 1 1141 1 0.24 1 41& 1 J�J2 1 Q, ?j& 1, & 10 5(o l ....................................................................... 1 SR 1 16001 1 221 0.01 1 1 6' 1 0.c7/ 1 .$- IO,p/ 1.........................................................................................�I ........ 1 I ... I I . I Q .. .... I ET I 1 41 I i ly I I I I ................................................................ .................. ...... i ER I N.S. I 1 53 1 1 1 .g- I I .& I Iyr ..'...4800 I._......1......1..................................................0.02I ,G I..... .� WR I M•S• 1 1 266 1 1 1 Y21 1 / Z I I [EXISTING •.............................. .. i............................................ . . ...............................................................................3 ( EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0. / l .....................................................................................1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH+ PROJECT J.C.U. 10s'7(0 1, .............................................................................:............... AProjected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_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 11 JASO4SAN JA5045PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i SAX JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD SD45 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PH ..............................•-................••............---........._._._.._--......... I IEXISTING PROPOSED IEXISTINGIEXI STING REGIONAL CCHNITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH } PROJECT I V/C Ratio l4olume V/C ICapacitylCapacityl Volume i Ratio Volume I Volume �w/o Projectl Ratio Volume ........... ................ .... •....__.............. .__._............_...... NL 1600 89 0.06 1 .� 1 I 1 . ..� �0 1 0.0& �9-A 10.061x� I xr 1 4soo 1 1 119s 1 o.zs 1 7�5 1 52$ 10, 3'7 1 9- ip.3ZI ._....--•--•...................................... . ..........•-------- NR 1 1600 1 1 94 i 0.06 0. 07 1........................................................................................... I SL 1 3200 1 1 453 1 0.14 1 145 10. /& I /z 10,J& I I•--••-••--.._••-----------••.........................•••-•---•--•-------•-------._._..-.-.-. �G ST 1 4800 1 1 1737 1 0.36 • 70 1 (`R 10. 5/ *.& 10,5-11 x- I----------------•---------------..-.-.---.-...•.-------.---•------------------.----------•-I I SR 1 1600 1 1 151 1 0.09 1 1 3 1 0, /0 1 -' 10./0I I.........................................................................................I. 1........) 4800 I................) 0.02 i............... I.__ET 1 1 28 _ ..--•---------•. . ...... .......•--._.._.__.....__._._....._. ......I I ER I H.S. -1 I 63..I... I I .¢- I I I I -------1 1-----.••----------•---.--•---------------------------------------------------------- I WL 1 1 157 1 I i _ 1 __...... 480o i i........) o.os 2r'o . Q: 2g rO.Ob E 60 47- I I I I -........._.---------------^ . .............• .....I I WR I N.S. I I 30D I I I /,!D 1 1 //2,, 1 1 1•----.-•-------•---•---.---•-•-----.--.-_•---••----..-•-----------------------••----•-.----I 1 0.49 IEXISTING --•_---•------••-•----•-I 1 • ---- ..----•--------•--•••---------- (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PRDPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0 • (05- 1 I 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .....1 IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. .....•.........•-•.........................••-.-•........................................._.. AProjected + project traffic I.C.U. will 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 Will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic J.C.U. with project Inprovements will be less than I.G.U. without project ----•-----------------------•....•.........•.................................._.......... Description of system improvement: PROJECT ` FORM It JA5045PK 4- ,5' 7 s 4+o-TtFt-- • � } r JA49BOAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES'BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRIRG 1993 AM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINCIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXiSTINGIREGIONAL CO1911TTED1 PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I Capacity II Capacityl Volum i Ratio i Volune Volum iw/o Project) i Ratio VoluQm 282 __ ......I... ....3200 !........!........I..........................!...I. ...�..g:..�o a�-� ........ _ HT 1 1 158T I 0 i lob3 . 0 �9 12.. ay�� ..) 4800 ..................) 0.34 �.. ................ .........-. . ............................3....._.....!......._I_.!� ................�. ! ......_ I St. 1 1600 1 1 25 1 0.02 * I -& 10,D2-�6'•10,a I•-•............................................................. ..... . i ST 1 4800 1 1 12n 1 0.27 1 52Z. 1 119010. 3F 1 1121D.`101 ............. ............................... ..................... SR 1 1600 1 1 20 1 0.01 1 1 9• 1 0.O/ 1 $' 10,0/ i ............................................. �...__._......._ . I EL 1 1600 1 1 122 1 0.08 I I I........................................................... -....._...I I ET 1 1600 p, I i76, 1 0.11 1 1 10 1 0. /2 1 .9 16. )2,1 ...........................................................................................,II ER 1 1600 1 1 215 1 0.13 • 170 I Q��� .�' I �-1 1 ........................................................21..._.0A..•i I- WL Q. , ' 4800 333.'...o. .f......._...I...... ......... ..... ...... i I I I I __ ... ... .............. II . 31 I 57 .. ... ....... .............. ............._.. -...O:Q..._I.. t... ... I 1EXISTING 1 0.57 1 1 ........ OHH _... .... ............. ... I 1EX1ST + REG GROWTH + CITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 10,rle I I........................................................................................... 1EXISTING + 'CCMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. (� Projected + project traffic I.C.U. mill be less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. u/systems iaprovement 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 iapeovcment: PROJECT FORM It JA4980AM 4- I t JA49SOPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FDRD ROAD 4980 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING1993.PM - I - - •_-•--.-••----IEXISTINGIPROPOSEOIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICauIITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT( IMovementl Lanee I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I l lcapacitylCepacityl Volume l Ratio l Votune I Votune [w/o Projeetl Ratio l 1 I Volume I __________________________•__--_-___-__.-___ __--------•---------•••-•-•:-••-i l -ML .1...3200 1 1 288 1 0.09 • 157 10• /1 �- 0,// -'•-----•-----••----o-----------------................_........ ' --- MR ) 4800 ------------------) 0.36 I•�a.... — c5Q..i� i- _-_ ............ .. •--- --- --- --- -I , I •• 130 1 isL I 1600 I I m I 0.07 I 0, 0 ..I10. .. l............................................. 1 ST 1 480D I I 2165 1 0.45 • g I G53 1 0.(o/_ 4-I2-!0&I?�E- 1 sR 1 1600 1 I I 1 1 � 0, 03 . .0_. 31 ........................ . I EL I 1600 l I 32 1 0.02 1 I 10.02- 1- '9 10,6 ..................................... .. 1-.._T ......___. 98 0.06 /- I e I �.� 1 I ET 1 ---- I i I 1 1 0" 1 0. 0/ 6 I ER 1 1600 1 1 274 1 0.17 • 1 n-/ 1.0 i9 4.9' 10,)9 __..__.---•-_------•--•---•.... ............ ..........1 I _.........__... 0.03 --•----"i• �_.i Y------WT I 1 ._______•_._____•______•..... ..........................I 1 wR I 1600 I i 14 l D.ot 1 130 10 05 1 �- I Q,0-9 ............."-•--._.................. '--..... .. (EXISTING __.__•____-._.•__ 1 0.74 I I 1---••---"'--•------................•'-----------•---------------•..._..... . I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1.0, l 5.-I -.....-_ I .......................... .."•-__._.. ....... ....... ... (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.•'-------------•'-----..... i ��- ........................................................ .... 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater then 0.90 1_) Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/system ieprovement 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 iaprovement: No INc4ze: cSE 1N CbL PROJECT FORM It 4( S J1•� t' �rr" , ,SIJ� JA4980PM T— TF ' V- JA4275AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E-W) t HACARTHUR'BL(N-S) 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AN I••' -••[ - [EXISTING REOIONAL1COMMITTEDIPROJECTED 1PROJECT•PROJECT IHovementl Lanes 'I Lanes PK MR GROWTH PROJEC T V/C " Y/C Ratio Yolune 'I V/C I lCepacity1capacityl Volune I Ratio Volume I Volune 'w/o Project I Ratio I i ' I VDluae I I III.--.-•.-•� .I - .�---i .. WL 1600 1790-11.1 1..57 0A. 14 :I1 0.00..:1.2 --.. ...1... 1........1.. -1 , : WT 1 1 1 loq 4800 ..................) 0.27 •----•---. ---..- MR 227 _ _- •__ -------...i... _ ---�- . ..... SL 1600 6010.04 45 ........................................ , � "� ST14800 11336 , .�.?• 0:0r Q � • L�2Ib,/WI ....... ... _. i sit I W.S. I I t69 1 I I R. I ._._.I. -e- I .............. I EL I. 320D ( i 496 I 0.16 ' 1 /&5 I0,1 / 1��,� I,�.L/ I............................................................................. I ET 'I 4300 I I 919 I 0.19 1 �D I TQL l�Q,l�6 l ..I�.:':'_.1 ..................... I ER I N.S. I 1 921 1 1 20 I 1 I i 1----------------..._..._..............................._...._..........I........-... ._..... III WL I I Q IQ.O�17 .... ........................ I IWr 4800 614 0.13 2 o7 �..d .............. — •---------------- - ----.. . ................. .. ... .... . . I WR I H.S. I 1 162 1 1 1 10 I I -d 1' I ..------•------------ ---- . .--.....--...-----o-------•----•------... . IEXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.60 I 1EX1ST + REG GROWTH,+ COMMITTED W/PROPOSED•IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U...I. 0,83_.1' I I I...............................:.........................*..... ....... ._ . .....I IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ...-•.................................................................................... . Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater then 0.9D f_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. N/systems inprovemcnt will be Less than or equal to 9.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project iaprovemonts Will be less then I.C.U. without project. ......................................................................................... Description of system iaprovementt PROJECT /1 c ^'r 'S 1 I ���A+, >`.� Y FORK 11 JA427SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD(E-W) L MACARTHUR BCULEVARD(N-S) 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH ....................................._....................................................... I IEXISTING[PROPOSED IEXISTINGIEXISTING IREGIONALICOMMITTED I PROJECTED (PROJECT I PROJECT IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio JVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I--------------------------------------------------------------_----------------------------I NL l 1600 1 I 286 I 0.18 • 120 1 0 4 I t7 /9 1)�- I NY 1 1 391 1 aq 1 /70 Q /(o•-� 2-•�Q'�71 I--------) 4800 ------------------) GA. I NR I 1 159 I 1 4-1 i I--------- •---•••-•------••----•--------•----•--..-----••--- --------------------------I I SL 1 1600 1 1 172 1 . 0.11 1 1 5 1 011-2- 1 'Q' IaW-I 1------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- - I ST I 48DO 1 1 874 1 0.18 • 53 1 Z{I 0, 2v�J� 10,4`,I - I-•-------------•-•---' .__.___._......._.._..........._....C,....._..........__ l I SR I N.S. 1 1 470 1 1 1 9b I i -B' I i I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.....I I EL 1 3200 1 1 229 1 0.07 • 1 1& /7 10,/%i *, & 10,/2 N— I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ET 1 4800 1 1 w 1 0.13 1 /3 1271 I Q_/9 12 ? Q,� I i---------•-----•--•-------------•............_..._.._... .................... I ER I H.S. 1 1 16 1 1 1 5 I 1 . - 1 1 -- - i----------------------------------- .......................................................I I WL 1 3200 1 1 505 1 0.16 I 1 7 10r /7 1 8' 10,/7 1------•---•-------•----•.............................. .. ...................•••......... I Wr 1 caoo 1 I 1299 I o.n • 2!o 133�.�. �✓� �k I-------------•••-•--•---------__.------•--------------••- I NR I H.S. I I 67 I I I I I $ I I ........--•................................. -------- --................................... (EXISTING 1 0.70 I 0,13-9 I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I V I I 1•------------------------•----------•-•---------•----•-----------�------__-___---�__. 1EX1STING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.V. D 96 ............................................................................................. 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 then 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 FORMAT I JA427SPM -- c�lJS T Nam— (�Ai IJ11 11� v MA5070AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD t SAN JOAOUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993,AK- .................. ....................................................................... IEXISTINGIPROPOSEOIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMIT1EDl PROJECTED IP,ROJECTIPROJECT• Movement Lanes I Lanes I PK HR' I V/C GROWTH PROJECT I V/C Ratio , Volume I' V/C I CapacttylCapacityl Volume I Ratio Volume Volume , 'w/o Project I Ratio I I I I I Volume .............. I -.-10HL1600 0.0s , OJr 710,o...................................................... •i- _ MABD 12s20.262 /l03 0: ;32 $ 3 til� J NR...L..1600.1........�.....9.L..0.01.L.......!. �..' I I i I ..-•--..........----1.0.07..1 .... I SL, 3200 -• 211 0.07 i. 9- 10.�T{I I ST ..1 ..3200 1• 1•._ 95E 1.......0.30.+ S$ 1 n/ 1� T1 1 SR I H.S. 1 1 612 1 1 1 &,5 1 19S i i 1............................................................... 1...3200 1........1.....b1.1...0.o3.f........i..i9---j Q.Q - �.- EL 10 0 I 480D .................. 0.03 ........ .. ._ I ER I I I 40I I I g I ................................................................ ............ .. ......I WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.01 1 1 e .1.0,0 1 I . ...........' 1 .............................................................. . ............ I WT 1 3200 1 1 220 1 0.07 1 1 3/ 1 0.09 1 8' 10.0 I I............................................ ......................... . ......^..�.......J I I WR 1 1600 •• 1 552 1 0.35 • 1 rj/ 1 O,-5g•�1- 10.7` f I........................................................................................... 1EXISTING I 0•n I I I.............................................................•---•••-----•-• I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0 �7 1 i 1EXISTIHG-4 COMMITTED +-REGIONAL•GROWTH :-PROJECT•I�C U. ............................ QO'/ *•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 I.C.U. wilt be greater then 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project loprovements will be less then I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system ieprovement: PROJECT d l FORM It — G WD70AM T- x�Ms 44u,-rL; . E�54pwsio1l 12,0 HAS070PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: HACARTHUR BOULEVARD i SAN JDAOUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING---------••---1993-PM I••- •-• - IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDIPROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1Volute v/C I I ICapaeity1cepacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I volune 1w/o Project) Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I I .....................I I NL 1 1600 I 1 41 1 0.03 * I $ I ( , / Io a I --------------------•---•-------------- I NT 1 4800 1 1 1045 1 0.22 1 l2% I /57 I 0-42 1 h- IQ. G6 I ----------------------------------------------------_______ . __-_______-____.___-I NR 1 1600 1 1 11 1 0.01 1 1 -0- 1_ o, 01 1 .-•'1 0, 01 ......... .............. SL 1 3200 1 1 439 1 0.14 1 1 30 16,15 '1 & 10,151 j ______________________---_____-----__________---•-•••._...........---•1 sT 1 3200 1 1 1291 1 0.40 - 79 1 25/10:51 0 10,51 -•----•---------•--•-------- ................... - 348 SR _---••N•s----"•-•----•---•-•------•---•---• --1- ... ._.1...._.. I // ........ I.__.-. JJp �L o" I EL 1 3200 1 1 5D4 1 0.16 * I go 1 o, /�? ".�A_ H I I •_____-__•........................•--•--'-- _. ...._... 1 ET 1 1 297 0.07112� Q.Vd �di.................. ------------------- ER I'-.-•--•) 4800 ) 1 I I 58 1 I---- I I rJ ............................ ...._. ..........._...._......... •-•--•--i---------•-•--- I --- i 1 --_____!__-�2-'-_ 1 D_- - � -V.0 1 I 13 0.01 49- I...vr 1 1 1 12 O.o9 480D ..................) .. n - •I I• •WR 1 1 262 0.08 I 1 7 '-----•--...._ .. 1EXISTING .......................•-.i •0.67 1.."'........_..._._..... _-... I ____.______••--• - 1 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0, ?1 ..1 I _____________________________________________•-•---- -------- ................. 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. .......... .. I O, I ..................................................................... . ........... Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater then 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/system 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 A — FORM it NA5070PM "� s ' yl MA4985PX INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 4 FORD ROAD 4935 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PX ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED EXISTING EXISTINGIREGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED (PROJECT PROJECT IMovementl Lanes I .Lanes I PK HA I V/C i GROWTH I PROJECT V/C Ratio Vol"( � V/C I ICapaclty Capacity Volume Ratio I Volume Volume w/o Projeetli Ratio I _ I Volume I- •NL -I .•32DO 1........i.....56 1 0.02 i........i..�...1 0.OZ..i.-a ....... . • I `T `8 ° I 1682 i ° 35a /0� 1 � 5 0, f0 9g .i7_ ...�.... °. ..._...�... . ... : . . - . _� ;� . . . �: NR i N.S. 1 . 1 23I 1 1 ar 1 14 1 I..........................................................................................�.J. I St. 1 3200 I i 69 1 0.21 --------•-_•-•---------•......................................... ST 1 4800 1 1 laps 1 0.39 1 1/5 12561 0' '�r/ 111. 10.471 _ .................................................. . .......................i. .i..... .'I`, .EL ..1..-3200 1........1.. ..31.1.................................. 0.01..........L. ...i 0. 1 � 1.0,0/ 1 ................................ . ........................... '-.......i..10...' lo ET13200 1 1161 1 0.05 16, 05 1 ,a 10.0 5 1 ................ ........................... ER 1 1600 1 1 85 1 0.05 1 1 -0- 1 0- 6 10 10.051 ........................................................................................./.1.I 1. WL 1 1600 1 1 36 1 0.02 1 1 ®' ,1 0,02- 1 $ 10,02.1 ................ ...................................................... ..... Wr �. I - .I tlr I ......0.10I --------) 4BOO ..................) 0.09 I- --... i.._._... _..7......i ..._.....i.....�JJ^.....1 ........ ... .......... .......... ........... , 1EXISTING 1 0.66 1 I COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS <.. .13 Fo -------o. .... ................. .....- . . .I _ ... 1EX15TI COMMITTED I.C.U.LC .. 75[ ............................................................................................. 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 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/system improvement wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic t.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvercnt: PROJECT p 4�i�/ pS10 l FORM 11 XA4985PX /''I I Z21- CPI OF NEWPORT BEACIO T ? 1 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 p Newport Beach,CA 9M9-1768 {� NOTICE OF DETERMINATION JAN 1 I S,'N To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Newport Bea4hY L. GRANVILLE,County Clef t 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planner Departmmint DEPT Y Sacramento,CA 95814 3300 Newport Botr1'gvard—P grad - Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange (Orange County) XXX 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. Nameoproject. Four Seasons Hotel Addition, Traffic Study No. 92, SPR'No. 32 Amended State Clearinghouse Number. Lead Agency Contact Person: Telephone No.: N/A John H. Douglas 714 /644-3225 Project Location: 690 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach Project Description: Construction of a 25,816 sq, ft. addition for ballroom and banquet facility. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on 01-06-1994 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Nate) 1. The project❑will El 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. V9 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 appro' If p E 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations❑was ❑was not adopted foiothis 1 5. Findings 0 were❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA .H�'1 11 1994 The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available ftf IntrA���f�Pd &part- ment of the City of Newport Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,CA J 92659-1768;714/644°���D�UI'( Environmental Coordinator Signatz re Date 7P11e Reviud 11-91 t 5 • . CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 B. Project Description: Construction ofa 25,816 sq.ft. addition for ballroom and banquet facility. C. project Location: 690 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 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 7535(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Nnimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 7535(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 7112 of the Fish and Game Code. Date Jo . Do as, AICP En ' onmen Coordinator City of Newport Beach F.\W PSI\PLAID'NNG\JOHN-D\FORMS\DFG-EXEM. STATE OF CAUFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE A RECEIPT * 30136 DFG 753.5a(6.91) Lead Agency: C.C�1 Date: �� County/State Agency of-Filing: n(rinM Document No.: `U Project Title: 2 s i C U14 0' Q 3n E 3� Project Applicant Name: //'�1 Phone Number:(puL4.31 1-4 Project Applicant,Address: DO -3 a. Project Applicant(check appropriate box): Local Public Agen School District ❑ Other Special District ❑ State Agency'❑ Private Entity ❑ CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: O Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ ( ) Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $ ( ) Application Fee Water Diversion(State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ ( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $ bV---County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ �S . (C��Pr ject that is exempt from fees A=7 VED $ Signature and title of person receiving payment FIRSTCOPY.PROJECTAPPLICANT SECOND COPKD FASB THIRD COPY-LEAD AGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY STATE AGENCY OF HUNG STATE OF CAUFORNIA-THE RESOURCESAGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME •�O,O O G O n ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT DFG 763.6a(B-91) Lead Agency: & Oc�Bu� A" Date: �a-/ I3 County/State Agency of Filing: o Document No.: Project Title: # Z 6M Project Applicant Name: V�� 9",- f Phone Number: Project Applicant Address: ��y> ieT Project Applicant(oheckappropflate-box): Local Public Agency School,District ❑ Other Special District ❑ State Agency ❑ Private Entity ❑ CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: O Environmental Impact Report $850,00 $ ( ) Negative Declaration $1,250.00 $ ( ) Application Fee Water Diversion(State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ ( ) Projects Subjectto Certified Regulatory Programs $850;00 $ O County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ Project that is exempt from fees TOTAL R CEI D $ �� Signature and title of person receiving payment FIRSTCOPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECONDCOPY-DFG/FASB THIRDOOPY-LEADAGEN FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF RUNG STATE OF CAUFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME t1 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CA 'RECEIPT 0- 30082 pFG 763.6e(6.67) Lead Agency: p ' Ale-,;.r I:9G !�lfr r 1 Date: County/State Agency of Filing: 2411{k)P;C� Document No.: 7 Project Title: S ✓h��t/� l�nJ/12 r/ Project Applicant Name: r i+/ Cf ,V6'V_Tyfr:�L± r;✓�.%%'✓� Phone Number: Project Applicant Address: % G' �fl- /"ot'r f%�✓�•� r ' i�" �-'if I Project Applicant(check appropriate box): Local Public Agency y School District ❑ Other Special District ❑ State Agency ❑, Private Entity ❑ CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: O Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ ( ) Negative DAclaration $1,250.00 $ O Application Fee Water Diversion(Stare Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ ( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $ ( ) County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ (X Project that is exempt from fees TOTAL RFICEIV)=D $ Signature and title ofperson receiving payment: '� FIRSTCOPY-PROJECTAPPUCANT SECOND COPY-OFG/FASG THIRD COPY-LEAD AGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF RUNG CI* OF NEWPORT BEACH 65794 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 - Newport Beach,CA 92650-1768 NEGATIVE DECLARATION F I L Ee�D To: From: City of Newport Beach DEC 1 7 1993 Office o[Planning and Research Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevar Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659) M"r� .FUTY OUO Clerk (Orange County) �y County Clerk,County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period December 17, 1993 - January 6, 94 Name of Project: Four Seasons Hotel Addition , Traffic Study No. 92 , SPR No..32 Amended Project Location: 690 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach Construction of a 25,816 sq.ft. addition for ballroom and Project Description: banquet facility. Finding. Pursuant to the provisions of CityCouncil Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee hks evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the envi"r6imrent. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public revievf. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. Ifyou wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your commentsshould 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 changes or 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. REMOVED BY T 0 8 Tt�at Y OF NEW JRT BEACH s ` JAW93'g1 (s John lAgouglas, P AWL 1i2gg141516 EnvirontrientalCoo inator Ut 17199� I$191�►1u1 1 Revit �y L DEPOW ENMONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST ' r CITY b! NEOPORT BEACH YYQ Yi � ♦� I. �1CRGROUND 'Application No: Traffic Study No. 92, Site Plan Review No. 67 'pYdj'ect name: Four Seasons Hotel Addition + •�,r ..'a:i 2.�' �' 3:"—Piafect location: 690 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach 4. Applicant: The Irvine Company ZI. ENKZRONMENTAL IMPACTS (see attached explanations) Yea Maybe 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 relief features? — d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ._ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ _ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudalides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: I a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration �,(') Of ambient air quality? ! 4 '�`�)�r tTAp creation of objectionable odors? _ A ":+ r iteration of air movements, moijsturp, or , 1emgerature, or any change in climate, locally or regionally? _ Snvirdnmental Analysis Checklist - Page 2 • YM Maybe L° 3. Water. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? .- - b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? — C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? -- f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? — 9. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts X or excavations? — — h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — i. Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ 4. Plant Life. Would the proposal result in: a. change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? — — - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? — C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? — d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? -- • Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 3 es Maybe V S. 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)? — _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? — C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier of animals2 migration to theration or movement _g d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? — 7. Light and Glare. Would the proposal produce new light or glare? -- --- 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? _ 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? — b. Possible interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? _ 11. Population. Would the ,proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? 12. Housing. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? _ Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 4 yea Maybe tj_o 13. T anog2rtation/Circulation/Parkins. Would the proposal result ins a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? 1� C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? '— d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? — e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor �( vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? �1 14. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: �( a. Fire protection? f b. Police protection? C. Schools? -- "— d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ - e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ f. other governmental services? 15. Eneray. Would the proposal result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? — — 16. otilites. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Electricity or natural gas? H- b. Communications systems? X C. Water or wastewater? — - c d. Storm water drainage? e. Solid waste and disposal? - Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 5 yell Maybe tj_o 17. suman Health. Would the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to a potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ 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? — 19. Recreation. Would the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing V recreational opportunities? _ 20. Cultural Resources. Would the proposals a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ L� C. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ d'. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ 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- term impacts endure well into the future.) _ _ Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 6 Yes Maybe tLo 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may have an impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant; or, a project may have incremental impacts that are individually minor, but are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, present, or probable future projects.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either Y directly or indirectly? J� IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION VIM BE PREPARED. j I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 77 �` environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached pages have been incorporated into the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [ ) I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONKENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Aziz H. Aslami (Associate Planner) Date: 12-7-93 Signature: Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations f:\...\FORMS\CHECKLST. Revised 12/91 I _ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS FOUR SEASONS HOTEL Traffic Study No. 92 Site Plan Review No. 67 Project Description The proposed site is a part of an existing hotel which is located on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive within Block 600 of Newport Center(see Vicinity Map). Currently the site is-a hotel facility with 325 rooms. The site is surrounded by professional office buildings, financial institutions and Fashion Island retail commercial. The proposed project will involve construction of 25,816 sq.ft. addition for a ballroom and banquet facility. The subject parcel is approximately 7.59 acre in size. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed projeces environmental Impacts. 1. Earth The site is an existing hotel facility. A portion of the existing surface parking and landscaping area will be altered to accommodate the proposed on-site improvement. The construction activities associated with the completion of the project will result in some soil disruption, excavation and compaction or soil displacement. An estimated export of approximately 3,340 cubic yards of earthen material is anticipated. A geotechnical report has been prepared for the site indicating that the soil contents of the site have sufficient quality to sustain the proposed improvement. There are no known active faults in the vicinity of this project. Compliance with the City Excavation and grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to insignificant level. 2. Air Construction Impacts During the course of construction some dust and odor from 1 diesel exhaust may be created. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Operational Impacts Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. Cooking odors will be treated via carbon filtration system of mechanical exhaust devices, therefore, these effects are not considered significant. 3. Water The proposed site is largely developed and the proposed improvements would not substantially increase water runoff. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. The project is located outside flood hazard area. Therefore, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 4. Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. 5. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. 6. Noise Construction Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. The hours of operation, regarding the construction noise, are regulated by the provisions contained in the City Noise Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 10.28). The Big Canyon residential area is the nearest noise sensitive land use, but the nearest homes are located a minimum of 800 feet from the proposed project, therefore construction noise effects are not expected to be significant. 2 Operational Impact Operational noise impacts would result primarily from traffic generated by the project. Since projected traffic generation is within the level assumed in the General Plan,no new significant impacts would be anticipated as a result of the proposed action. 7. Light and Glare ii If exterior lighting is required, the proposed ,project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect adjacent properties. The following mitigation would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that direct rays are confined to the site to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure #1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 8. Land Use The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial land use, which permit hotel development, by the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Under the current General Plan Land Use provisions, the existing 325 room hotel is a permitted land use. The Zoning is APF-H designating the site for professional office development. The proposed addition of,a ballroom and banquet facility is considered an ancillary use, therefore allowed by the City's General Plan and Zoning. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and Coastal Permit is not required. 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by 3 • this project. 10. Risk of Upset The proposed use is a ballroom and banquet facility within an existing hotel operation. No foreseeable hazard to public health and safety would be anticipated. 11. Population The proposed project would increase the hotel employment, however, no direct population increase would result from the project. 12. Housing It is anticipated that the proposed project could cause a minor increase in employment, which would generate an increased demand for housing, but this increase is not considered significant. 13. Transportation/Parking Presently the subject site is a 325 room hotel operation. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development therefore, a traffic study became necessary to evaluate the impact of the subject proposal on the City's existing circulation system. The Traffic Engineer selected ten intersections that would be affected by the proposed project, and a traffic study has been prepared as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The one percent traffic volume test was applied to the selected intersections and seven of the intersections exceeded the maximum one percent volume test therefore,further analysis of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) were required for the following intersections. Bristol Street N. @ Jamboree Road Bristol Street S. @ Jamboree Road Jamboree Road @ San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road @ Eastbluff / Ford Road Jamboree Road @ MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard @ San Joaquin Hills Road 4 MacArthur Boulevard @ Ford Road ICU analysis was performed for both a.m..and p.m. 2-1/2 hour peak periods and determined that three intersections are projected to have ICU values of higher than 0.90. At two of these three intersections ( Bristol Street N. @ Jamboree Road and Jamboree Road @ Eastbluff/Ford Road) ICU values would not increase as compared to existing conditions,therefore no mitigation is necessary. At the Bristol Street S. @ Jamboree Road intersection the .project would cause an ICU increase from 0.97 to 0.98, therefore mitigation is required under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The following mitigation measure would reduce traffic at this intersection so as to maintain the existing 0.97 ICU value as required by the TPO. N Measure Mitigationo. 2 Use of the outdoor function area shall be prohibited during the hours of 6.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. weekdays until such time as the northbound Jamboree Road onramp to the SR-73'is constructed Parking. Currently, ,the Four Seasons Hotel is required to maintain 369 parking spaces. The Irvine Company/Four Seasons Hotel has an off-site parking agreement with the City which is binding to the use of the parking structure which is located directly to the north of the proposed ballroom/banquet addition at 630 Newport Center Drive and accommodates for a total of 1,362 parking spaces. Based on a parking study conducted for the Block 600 which contains the proposed project site, there are a total of 3,141 parking garage provided. Without the proposed addition, at full occupancy of all uses within the Block 600, the parking requirement would remain at 2,625 spaces. The addition of the ballroom and banquet facility would cause the elimination of 41 existing surface parking spaces which would reduce the available parking to 3,100(3,141- 41) spaces. The proposed development would require a total of 220 additional parking spaces,which Would increase the total block parking requirement to 2,845 spaces. The excess parking available within the Block 600 is 475 (3,100-2,625)spaces,which would satisfy the additional parking requirement with a surplus of 255 parking spaces. 5 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create a significant additional demand for these services. 15. Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. 16. Utilities and Service Systems The site has already been served by the utility System and no significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system is anticipated. 17. Human Health The proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials on the site, therefore, no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. 18. Aesthetics Based on the information submitted to the City and by compliance with the provisions contained in the City's Zoning Code regarding the project's design, signs, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site, the effects shall be reduced to insignificant level. 19. Recreation The quality and quantity of recreational activities will not be impacted by the project. 20. Cultural Resources The project site is located in an area where archaeological and paleontological resources have been discovered in the past and may exist on this site. As a result, the applicant will be required to comply with the following mitigation measure, which requires compliance with Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological surveys and recovery of resources. 6 { f ' Mitigation Measure No. 3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies &S and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the 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 cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. There are no ]mown substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. R\...\traffic\tpo92\ncg-dcc 7 VICINITY MAP Traffic Study No.92 Site Plan Review No. 67 F i f N,� y y �e 4 9p\ �O y h SAY aRiV£ S5 r :Y:f•.Y�S SS. � `N :.Cs.fi L CCNT£R NSfPCp2 �R(yf �45R ''yr City of Newport Beach Planning Department CacemYer 8. 1993 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that th0lanning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public• hearing on the applications of The Irvine Company for Site Plan Review No. 32 (Amended) and Traffic Study No. 92 on property located at 690 Newport Center Drive. Request to amend a previously approved Site 'Plan Review which permitted the construction of the 325 room Four Seasons Hotel in Newport Center The proposal also included: the establishment of an off-street parking requirement based upon a demonstrated formula the-acceptance of two off-site parking agreements: and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces tandem parking spaces with valet service and two oversized wall signs The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a 9 000+ square foot ballroom/banquet facility with ancillary uses to include a kitchen restrooms storage and pre-function areas to include a function lawn area. The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic study for the proposed ballroom/banquet facility. 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 forpublic 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 ¢th day of January 1994, 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. • 0 Nov 29 11:31 1993 utiL05:/users/xuser/HOTELS MOTELS Page 1 NAME ADDRESS # OF ROOMS MESA MOTEL 415 NORTH NEWPORT BLVD 30 RODEWAY INN NEWPORT BEACH 6208 COAST HWY W 46 PORTOFINO BEACH HOTEL 2306 OCEAN FRONT W 12 BALBOA INN 105 MAIN ST 34 LITTLE INN ON THE BAY, THE 617 LIDO PARK DR 30 NEWPORT BEACH MARRIOTT HOTEL 900 NEWPORT CENTER DR 600 PINE KNOT MOTEL 6302 COAST HWY W 13 SEASIDE MANAGEMENT 2102 OCEAN FRONT W 10 SAIL INN MOTEL 2627 NEWPORT BLVD 16 NEWPORT CHANNEL INN 6030 COAST HWY W 31 ST CHRISTOPHER HOTEL/BRITTNY NICHOL 1107 JAMBOREE RD 410 BAY SHORES INN 1800 BALBOA BLVD W 20 SAYCLIFF MOTEL 455 NORTH NEWPORT BLVD 23 NEWPORT CLASSIC INN/NEWPORT DYNASTY 2300 COAST HWY W 20 MARRIOTT SUITES 500 BAYVIEW CIR 256 BALBOA BAY CLUB 1221 COAST HWY W 124 HOTEL MEREDIAN 4500 MACARTHUR BLVD 471 SHERATON NEWPORT 4545 MACARTHUR BLVD 349 FOUR SEASONS 690 NEWPORT CENTER DR 325 BALBOA ISLAND HOTEL 127 AGATE AVE 4 r Skidmore,OwiMs Aerri 11 the Maritime Plaza San FranciscoCahlornki 94111 415 981 1555 Telex 34212 January 14, 1986 Department of City Planning City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attn: Tracy Williams Dear Ms. Williams: The enclosed information is provided on behalf of the Irvine Company for purposes of calculating the number of parking spaces required for additional development on Block 600, located in the Newport Center, City of Newport Beach, California. The Net Floor Area of each building was calculated by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill in accordance with the following definition: Net Floor Area, "per the City of Newport Beach, is defined as that area included within the surrounding exterior walls of the structure exclusive of vent shafts, elevator shafts, stairways, exterior corridors or balconies, and rooms containing only mechanical or electrical equipment, and all utility shafts, and parking." The buildings listed below contribute as indicated to the parking requirment for Block 600. 600 Newport Center Drive (portion of Parking Structure No.. 1) r _ No. Stories: Ground Floor Gross Floor Area: Approx. 374,000 sf Net Floor Area: 13,696 sf No. Stalls Required: 37 610 Newport Center Drive (Old Union Bank Building) R�r/GA7i No. Stories: 19 l 9//s/fSL J Gross Floor Area: 319,576 sf Net Floor Area: 266,469 sf No. Stalls Required: 711 SW" =re,OWMs&Merrill • Department of City Planning City of Newport Beach January 14, 1986 Page 2 620 Newport Center Drive (Avco Building) No. Stories: 17 Gross Floor Area: 277,105 sf Net Floor Area: 214,727 sf No. Stalls Required: * 573 630 Newport Center Drive (Portion of Parking Structure No. 2) No. Stories: Ground Floor Gross Area: Approx. 458,000 sf total Net Floor Area: 13,763 sf * No. Stalls Required: 37 660 Newport Center Drive (Wells Fargo Building) No. Stories: 17 Gross Floor Area: 293,895 sf Net Floor Area: 247,341 sf * No. Stalls Required: 660 690 Newport Center Drive (Four Seasons Hotel) No. Stories: 20 Gross Floor Area: 334,017 No. Stalls Required: ** 370 * At one stall for every 375 Square Feet of Net Floor Area,as specified in the Pooled Parking Agreement dated November 1976, with the City of Newport Beach. ** Per Development Permit with the City of Newport Beach. Skidmore,Owings&Merrill Department of City Planning City of Newport Beach January 14, 1986 Page 3 We understand that the City may request to review the calculations and support material used to determine the above information. We are prepared to comply with such a request if required. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, David S, Moulton Associate Partner DSM:jlg cc: Charles Blenkhorn, Irvine Company Day Hilborn, SOM SOM Main File ------------- CITY OF NE)ATORT BEACH, CASH RECEIPT, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 323,57 RECEIVED BY: CM CUSTOMER:FOUR SEASONS HOTEL ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEESNEGATIVE DELL-690 NCD 010-5000 $278. 00 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0102243 CO- FILIX121 FEES 010-2243 $25. 00 AN, TOTAL DUE $303. 00 TENDERED CHAN13E CASH PAID CHECK PAfb r--HE'CK $. 00 $30373. 00 562r;$4 $3 03.QQ s.00 ' 'D.'35 DATE E.-- 12,,4 -- --- Vendor - Invoice or- - — Voucher Gross Net 56324 No Credit No No. Amount Discount Amount 1 171 1,/93"-- S03. 0 . 0:'0 T03=.-W0' 7" Remittance Advice Please quote voucher number when making account Inquiries. FourSeasons Hotel NEWPORTBEACH 690 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 OPERATING ACCOUNT- _ 446 _ 303. 00 CITY OF NEWPORT BO.H SEW POST o� ,• e� Building Department t n = 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 C'9GiF0 RN�P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. FEE RECEIPTS FOUR SEASONS HOTEL 690 Newport Center Drive Received From Job Address Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..... ................... ......010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection. ................ ..�••�•• ........010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P............... 010-5008 $ �IOV'(?�"1593""" '. Temporary Electric..........................................010-4612 $ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH§ .•.010-4616 $ TemporaryGas.......................... GreaseInterceptor..........................................010-4620 $ Planning Department Fees..... ...SPR.#6...7................. . . ...010-5000 $ 970.00 Sale of Maps &Publications.. ....... .. .. ... .. ...... .. . . .010-5812 $ Traffic Study #92 010-2300 -6760.60- Other City Fee 010-5010 $ 670_00 f RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ 8,340.00 NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. &� (( )l Z, FEE-RECEIPT NO. (4/92f\f"rcPt) • ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION F City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 644-3225 A. General information 1. Applicant/Agent: The Irvine Company _ Phone: (,710)720-2000 Address: 550 Newport Center Drive P.O. Box I Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 2. Property owner The Irvine Company Phone: (714) 720-2000 Address: 550 Newport Center Drive P.O. Box I Newport Beach, CA 92658-8904 S. Project Descrivtion Please attach the following materials for the project: • Vicinity map • Plans drawn to scale • Proposed revisions to zoning map • At least 3 different site photos mounted and text using underline and on 8 1/2 X 11 cardboard with a key map strikeeub notation, if applicable showing the photo locations and direction of view 1. Project name: Four Seasons Hotel 2. Project location: Four Seasons Hotel/Newport Center 3. Assessor's parcel #: 442"i01-15,16,17 4. Permit application #: Sa. Proposed use: Ballroom/Banquet Facility Addition 19,337 sq. ft. landscaping 5b. Project size (dwelling units, gross floor area, etc.)25 816 auditingalootpr£nt So. Site size: 7.59 acres 5d. Building height: 29 1/2 6. Existing land use designations: General Plan: Hotel zoning: C.O.H. Specific Plan: N.A. LCP: N.A. 7. Previous governmental approvals: Site Plan Review Site Plan Review Amendment S. Other governmental approvals required: Federal: States Regional: Local: 9. Begin construction: Jan. 7, 1993 Estimated occupancy: Oct. 15, 1994 (date) (date) C. Potential Environmental Effects On a separate page, please provide the following information. If the question is not applicable, indicate "Not applicable" or "None". 1. Earth Please describe the earthwork that will be required for the project. Include grading quantities, and the location of borrow or stockpile sites, and haul routes, if applicable. Describe any geotechnical or soils investigations that have been conducted. Include exhibits showing existing and proposed topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices. SEE EXHIBIT "A" 2. Air Describe any air emissions or odors that could result from the project, including emissions during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. SEE EXHIBIT "B" 3. Water Describe existing and proposed site drainage, and measures that will be employed to reduce erosion and prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drain system, groundwater or surface water. Describe any changes that could occur in groundwater levels or bodies of surface water. Is the project located in a flood hazard zone? . SEE EROSIONAL CONTROL PLAN 4. Biological Resources Describe the existing vegetation on the site, and any trees or large shrubs that are to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabit the site. N/A 5. Noise Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise-generating equipment that will be utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. What means to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed? SEE EXHIBIT "B" 6. Light and Clare Describe exterior lighting that is proposed for the project and means that will be utilized to reduce light and glare impacts on surrounding properties. 7. Land Use SEE EXHIBIT "B" Describe: a) the existing land uses and structures on the project site and on adjacent parcels; b) the project's conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its compatibility with surrounding land uses. 8. Public Health and- Safety SEE,'EXHIBIT "B" Identify any aspects of the project that could present a risk to public health due to normal operations, or due to an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or spill. Is there any possibility that the site could be contaminated due to previous uses or dumping? If so, what measures are proposed to eliminate the hazard or contamination? NO CONTAMINATION 9. Population/Housing Employment a. If the project is residential, please explain how the project will comply with the affordable housing policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan, and the average household size expected. b. If the project is commercial, industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses and the estimated number of employees. 10. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Please describe how the project Will comply with parking regulations, and identify any changes or improvements to the circulation system that are proposed as part of the project. SEE PARKING AND TRAFFIC STUDY 11. Public Services/Utilities Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. SEE EXHIBIT "B" • Communications Systems • Electrical power • Fire protection • Natural gas • Parks/recreational facilities • Police protection • Schools Sewer systems or septic tanks • Solid waste and disposal Storm water drainage systems 12. Aesthetics Describe whether the project could potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Could the project block any private views? SEE EXHIBIT "B" 13. Cultural and Historic Resources Please identify any known archaeological or paleontological resources that exist on the site. Would the project result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or object having historical, cultural, or religious significance? Certification N/A I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of ,this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. DAVID B. NEISH Print name of owner or representative Signature i/- i� • 93 Date Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: f:\...\JD\FORHS\ENV-INFO. Rev. 12/91 1. A preliminary estimate of earthwork quantities was prepared for the proposed subject ballroom addition project by the firm of K.W. Lawler and Associates, Inc. The preliminary grading quantities which resulted from said estimate calculations are: Raw Cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,456 Cubic Yards Raw Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 Cubic Yards 2. Since no soils report is currently available for the project (a soils report is under preparation), shrinkage and subsidence values were assumed to equal zero, yielding a conservative value. 3. Export, therefore, equals the difference between the two specified quantities, or 2,940 cubic yards. Assuming an additional 400 cubic yards for building footing and trench spoils yields a total export value of approximately 3,340 cubic yards. 4. An earthwork disposal site has not yet been selected. However, it is reasonable to assume that said site will be located within the Newport Beach, Irvine vicinity. 5. Haul route plans will be prepared immediately upon selection of a disposal site, and will be submitted for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Official. 111693/17467.1 Exhibit "A" ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM 2. AIR Range hood exhaust which would carry cooking odors will be treated via a carbon filtration system. 5. NOISE During construction no unusual noise is expected other than that generated by diesel engines of construction equipment. 6. LIGHT AND GLARE All proposed exterior lighting will be discreet landscape or function lights. Large existing light poles are to be removed - no impact on surrounding buildings as the majority of the lights/glare will be used during off business hours. 7. LAND USE Currently the project location is a landscaped lawn area with no specific purpose. Hotel, office and parking structures surround the site. Complete compatibility is proposed. The hotel will function internally the great majority of the time. The rest of the time the space will be used during off business hours. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES Gas, water and sewer will tie into the existing systems which are adequate for the expansion. 12. AESTHETICS No views will be obstructed. The scale of the project is significantly smaller than the existing structure. The proposed addition is located at the blind end of the guest room tower - no hotel views are obstructed. 111593/17456.1 Exhibit "B" MKOTICE 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 The Irvine Company for Site Plan Review No 32 (Amended) and Traffic Study No. 92 on property located at 690 Newport Center Drive. Request to amend a previoualy approved Site Plan Review which permitted the construction of the 325 room Four Seasons Hotel in Newport Center. The proposal also included: the establishment of an off-street parkins requirement based upon a demonstrated formula: the acceptance of two off-site parking agreements: and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces tandem parking spaces with valet service and two oversized wall signs The proposed amendment includes a request to construct a 9 000± sq. ft. ballroom./banquet facility with ancillary uses to include a kitchen restrooms, storage and pre-function areas. A 3 600+ sq ft lawn area for various functions is also proposed The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic study for the proposed ballroom/banquet facility and lawn area. 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 6th day of January 1994, at the hour of 77.30 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. PURCHASE + CITY OF REQUISITION NE BEAACH m LIFO% P.O.No.: Date: December 7, 1993 Reserved) Dept: PLANNING Suggested Vendor: Ship To: WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. PLANNING 680 Langsdorf Drive, Suite 222 _ . . Fullerton CA 92631 - Attention: Phone No: Quantity Description of Articles or Services Required Unit•Price Amount Budget# 1 Traffic Engineering Services f traffic and—parking study of the proposed Four Seasons Hotel Expansion- at 690 Newport Center Dr. Newport Beach TS#1 92 i Comments: $6,700 deposited into account 11-9-93 Sub Total (receipt ##1131612) Tax Total Date Required: F.O.B. Terms Code Amount r1 ;APPROVED(Department Head or person auth rind to execute requisitions) P[JRCHASING MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR(Approval required for purchases exceeding$2,000) W * 1 A WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING September 10, 1993 Mr.John Douglas Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1988 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Mr. Douglas: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional traffic engineering services for a traffic and parking study of the proposed Four Seasons Hotel expansion in Newport Beach. This proposal is based upon information provided by you and Rich Edmonston of the City, our previous work, and our understanding of the needs of the study. In general, the work would consist of preparing a traffic analysis as required to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), as well as other traffic and parking related concerns for the project. The analysis would include consideration of existing, committed project, regional growth, and project traffic, as required by the TPO. Criteria and methodologies contained in the TPO would be utilized to identify potential traffic impacts, along with previous studies and development plans. The adequacy of the parking supply would also be examined. Mitigation measures would be recommended, as may be required. A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. 680 Langsdorf Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton, CA 92631 0 (714) 871-2931 9 FAX:(714) 871-0389 We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this study. TASK 1 - DATA COLLECTION We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This would include development plans, existing traffic volumes, committed projects and traffic,regional growth factors,planned circulation improvements,previous studies, and similar data. We would discuss the project with you and the City Traffic Engineer to ensure our understanding of the project and the scope of the study. It is understood that the City would provide AM and PM traffic volume data for existing conditions and for committed projects. A field review would be made to familiarize ourselves with existing conditions. Observations would be made of current parking usage during peak periods. TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT Estimates would be made of trips to be generated by the project during the AM and PM peak hours and 2.5 hours peak periods. These estimates would be based upon trip generation rates applicable to the specific uses and acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. A geographic trip distribution pattern would be developed for the site. This distribution would be based upon previous studies in the area. The distribution would be reviewed with the City Traffic Engineer. Estimated project traffic would be assigned to the street system in conformance with the distribution pattern. TASK 8 - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The City Traffic Engineer has identified 10 signalized intersections to be included in the study. The "One Percent" test would be conducted at each of these intersections to identify potential traffic impacts, as required by the TPO. Any intersection that fails the "One Percent" test would be further evaluated with the ICU analyses. (Both the "One Percent" test and the ICU analyses would include existing, committed project, and regional V + growth traffic, as prescribed in the TPO.) Any intersection with an ICU value greater than 0.90 would be analyzed to identify mitigation measures. Mitigation measures would be recommended, as maybe required. Sketches of recommended mitigation measures would be included,where applicable. TASK 4 - PARKING ANALYSIS Estimates would be made of parking requirements for the proposed ballroom/meeting room usage. These estimates would be based upon proposed usage data, previous studies of similar facilities, and standard reference data. The projected demands would be combined with observed demands to simulate future conditions. Consideration would also be given to previous study data for the hotel. The projected demands would be compared to the proposed supply to evaluate adequacy. Parking layout, on- site circulation, and operations would also be examined. Any potential problem areas would be identified and mitigation measures recommended, as may be required. TASK 5 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. The report would contain the required supportive data and conform to the requirements of the TPO. We would meet with you, other City Staff members, and others as may be required during the course of the study. Attendance at two (2) public hearings is included as a part of this proposal. We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is anticipated that approximately four (4) weeks would be required to complete the study. This schedule assumes no delays in obtaining City supplied data. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $6,700.00, without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for additional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project, not mentioned in this proposal, our staff would be available with the fees based upon our Rate Schedule, in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representative. We appreciate having the opportunity of submitting this proposal and look forward to serving the City. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Weston S. P ingle, P.E. WSP:ca W *; • • -� WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective January 1, 1992 PROFESSIONAL STAFF HOURLY RATES Firm Principal $110.00 Senior Engineer $ 95.00 Associate Engineer $ 70.00 Assistant Engineer $ 60.00 SUPPORT STAFF Engineering Draftsman $ 60.00 Draftsperson $ 45.00 Secretary $ 25.00 Clerical, Field Enumerator $ 30.00 GENERAL 1. Travel, reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. 2. Hourly rates apply to travel in addition to work time. 3. Invoices shall be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of the work, at our option, and payable within 30 days after submission. After 60 days, unpaid invoices shall have a 1.5 percent, per month, service charge added. We shall have the option of halting work on your project when invoices are unpaid and overdue, unless mutual agreement is achieved. In the event that it is necessary for either party to incur legal expenses in connection with the performance of this contract, the prevailing party agrees to pay all court costs and attorney fees. 4. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of the client to receive payment from other parties. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineer's Manual on Engineering Practice Number 45. AM T.anocrinrf nrive • Sni+a 922 • Fnllartnn. CA 92831 • f7141 871-2931 • FAXJ7141 871-0389 AWPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. ' TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Decemberr 22, 1993 Mr.John Douglas Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1788 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 SUBJECT: FOUR SEASONS HOTEL EXPANSION Dear Mr. Douglas: Enclosed please find a revised report that addresses traffic concerns related to the proposed Four Seasons Hotel expansion located in the City of Newport Beach. This report is based upon information provided by the City of Newport Beach, previous studies, field reviews and standard reference materials. We trust that this study will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WPAA�TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Weston S. Prin e, P.E. � F FWPORT k3E��• Registered Professional Engineer 5 OF N State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 DEC 2 1 1993 PM WSP:HN 7�8�9�IDIllt�t1i��314�5i6 #83041 RRn T.anowln�f Th;.,n nA ncrn. --. .__ ._ . .. ._ FOUR SEASONS HOTEL EXPANSION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECEMBER 22, 1993 Prepared By WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......... 1 il. TRIP GENERATION .................. 1 III. TRIP DISTRIBUTION ................... 2 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES .... 2 V. PARKING .............................................................. 10 VI. SUMMARY ............................................................ 11 VI1. MITIGATIONS .......................... 12 APPENDIX A - ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS APPENDIX B - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES PROTECT DESCRIPTION Four Seasons Hotel is located on the northeasterly corner of Newport Center Drive and Santa Cruz Drive, which is known as Block 600 of Newport Center. The hotel is proposing to add a 9,000 square foot ballroom usable for meetings and other functions with a maximum occupancy of 600. In addition, a 3,528 square foot function lawn area is being added to be used for weddings, luncheons, special events, etc. Vehicular access to the proposed ballroom and function lawn area would be via Center Drive. Valet parking would be available at a motor court which is located directly east of the proposed ballroom area. Vehicles would be parked in a parking garage located at 630 Newport Center Drive, which is directly north of the motor court. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project site in relationship to the surrounding street system. Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan. It is estimated that the project will be completed by the end of Year 1994. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates for hotel uses are generally based upon the number of guest rooms and includes consideration of restaurant, retail and meeting/ballroom facilities. There is no set trip generation rate for a particular facility within a hotel, such as in this case a ballroom facility and function lawn area. In order to determine the effect of the increased meeting/ballroom and function lawn area, discussions were held with the City of Newport Traffic Engineer to determine the trip generation assumptions most applicable to the proposed ballroom facility within the Four Seasons Hotel. Those assumptions used for the ballroom facility would also apply to the function lawn area, due to the fact both facilities provide the same service. Since this is a unique condition, a worst case scenario would have the ballroom facility at capacity of 600 persons, non-hotel guests, and all arriving during the AM peak hour and leaving during the PM peak hour. This condition cannot be anticipated to occur on any regular basis and is not a realistic assumption for trip generation. A scenario of 400 n .y � BR�Sl S, �< _ — BRjSTO` ST Sp 0� No Scale 03WV6R5`�y 0� EE �J 0 2� -o Q qST c � DR m FORD RD �O o� q- Oo, SqN i O� SANTA BARBARA `, DR 90G� U PROJECT CEryr� SITE mo A% d y P� Pq C,�F/C 5 COAST BAY SHORE DR ayS/Df DR 900 ao PROJECT LOCATION s SPA RUN ENGINEERING, INC. FIOUPE 9 15 • �♦{{�. Vi afllGv Nl iC ♦\t\ y �': FLtc ,7jI �.,',rdy�� �"WI 'Ff. ��+� '.. ,� �� _ ' �,? '�' I d�.`••• •• ♦\l.e- icy `� d '�`.•i "+ 1• t �1 .... r IL::�} �' ♦ '; ' %(Y~3 Ift NxS�, ti is a a." � ��� r•..tl.. .44 ♦ 3,j� w• 4 s o ' 1 ; ,EASONS NEW ' EM] SITE • -2- persons was assumed to be more realistic, with 25 percent to be hotel guests and 75 percent would be non-hotel guests with an average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5. This assumption resulted in 200 peak direction trips during the peak hour and an estimated 10 percent or 20 vehicles would be in the opposing ingress/egress direction for the ballroom facility. The function lawn area, which is approximately 39 percent the size of the ballroom facility, would generate approximately 39 percent of the traffic that the ballroom facility generates. The function lawn area would generate 80 peak direction trips during the peak hour and an estimated 10 vehicles would be generated in the opposing ingress/egress directions. Table 1 summarizes the estimated trip generation for both the ballroom and function lawn areas. Due to the type of project and factors discussed, it is assumed that the 2.5 hour peak and peak hour volumes would be approximately equivalent. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution percentages were based upon previously completed distributions in the area, the location of the trip attractors, type of land use, proximity of freeways, and the surrounding street system. Figure 3 illustrates the resulting distribution percentages which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach. The project generated peak 2.5 trip ends were then assigned to the road system based on the distribution percentages and the proposed project access. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES The City of Newport Beach was contacted to determine the intersections that were to be analyzed. There are a total of ten intersections that were analyzed in this study and they are listed in Table 2. The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" from the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized for each of the study intersections. If project generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing, regional growth and • • -3- TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION Four Seasons Hotel Expansion TIME TRIP ENDS AM PM Peak Hour BALLROOM FACILITY In 200 20 Out 20 200 FUNCTION LAWN FACILITY In 80 10 Out 10 80 2.5.HOUR PEAK TOTAL BALLROOM AND FUNCTION LAWN FACILITY In 280 30 Out 30 280 \73 N I aR�s 0 BR�sr loi �15% o� sT 10% sr 0 No Scale eR,sTO< S73 30% 10 30%� A 10% 10% ao% o� 25% JFa It 40% e" LEGEND o STUDY INTERSECTIONS Q 35% T CO qsr O m FORD RD e° �40% o� 40% 35% 10%/ 10�% DRNTA BARBARA D 0 C 9G 5% 'N PROJECT �Q �61 ccryl SITE �% 15% 0° 0 5% INT. 25% 35% 10% P,d 15% Wy SpC� IFIC a coasr BAY SHORE DR ars/Df DR o00 j 2.5% o� I �5% 2tL DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION SPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. FIGURE 3 TABLE 2 STUDY INTERSECTIONS Four Seasons Hotel Expansion 1. Bristol Street North &Jamboree Road 2. Bristol Street &Jamboree Road 3. Coast Highway & Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive 4. Coast Highway & Bayside Drive 5. Coast Highway &Jamboree Road 6. Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road 7. Jamboree Road & Ford-Eastblufl'Drive 8. Jamboree Road & Mac Arthur Boulevard 9. Mac Arthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road 10. Mac Arthur Boulevard & Ford Road TABLE 3 COMMITTED PROJECT LIST Four Seasons Hotel Expansion Hughes Aircraft #1 Far West Savings & Loan Aeronutronic Ford Back Bay Office Boyle Engineering Cal Canadian Bank Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport Macarthur Court Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza 3701 Birch Office Newport Place Bank of Newport Bayside Square Sea Island Baywood Apartments Harbor Point Homes Roger's Gardens Seaview Lutheran Plaza Rudy Baron Quail Business Center 441 Newport Blvd. Martha's Vineyard Valdez Coast Business Center Koll Center NPT No. 1 Ross Mollard Hughes Aircraft #2 Flagship Hospital Big Canyon 10 Fun Zone Marriott Hotel St. Andrews Church Pacific Mutual #84 Allred Condos Morgan Development Four Seasons Hotel Univ. Ath. Club TPP Block 400 Medical Amend. No. 1 MacArthur Ct Amend. No. 2 Ford Aero Carver Granville Office Corona Del Mar Homes Big Canyon Villa Apts. 1400 Dove Street 1100 Quail Street Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A Rosan's Development Block 500 NPT CTR Project Newport Aquatics Center 2600 E Coast Hwy Jasmine Park Newporter Inn Expansion Fashion Is. Renaissance CDM Senior Project Point Del Mar Pacific Club Newport Seacrest Apt. 3800 Campus Dr. Hoag Cancer Center Edwards Newport Center Seaside Apts (Mesa II) Victoria Station 3760 Campus Drive Newport Imports Mariners' Mile Marine Center 15th Street Apartments Seaside Apartments III Newport Bay Retirement Inn Newport Classic Inn Mariners Church Expansion McLachlan-Newport Place 1501 Superior Medical Fashion Island #2 Newporter Resort Expand. Newport Lido Med. Center Villa Point Shokrian 15th Street Apartments Newport Diagnostic #85 Andrew Restaurant Balboa/Washington Newport Import Restaurant 28th Street Marina Project Ambrosia Restaurant Calty/Toyota Expansion Our Lady Queen of Angels Zonta Club Residential Villa Point II Taco Bell Pacific Bell Site Newport Village Castaways Marina Koll Center - Carls Jr. Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza & West Burgess Commercial Center Harbor Pacific Plaza Hoag Hospital Extension Amendment No. I Ford Aero Amendment No. 1 N. Ford Irvine Project Newport Dunes Bayview City of Irene Development -5- committed project traffic on any approach to any of the selected intersections, then additional analyses are required which consists of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses. Projects may be approved when the ICU value for an intersection will not exceed 0.90 or the ICU value does not change when the project is added. The basis for the comparison includes existing traffic, regional growth and approved/committed project traffic. A list of the committed projects is provided in Table 3. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1994, the analyses were completed for the Year 1995 as required by the Ordinance. The proposed project peak 2.5 hour volumes for the AM and PM were distributed onto the street system, and these trips were added to the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis". Appendix A contains the data for the individual intersections and the results are summarized in Table 4. The criteria established by the City of Newport Beach indicated that any intersection where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds one percent of existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in detail. Review ofTable 4 indicates that seven of the study intersections exceed the maximum one percent on at least one approach and must be considered critical. The seven study intersections of Bristol St. N./Jamboree Rd., Bristol St./Jamboree Rd., Jamboree Rd./San Joaquin Hills Rd., Jamboree Rd./Eastblufl=Ford, Jamboree Rd./MacArthur Blvd., MacArthur Blvd./San Joaquin Hills Rd.and MacArthur Blvd./Ford Rd. were further analyzed to determine potential impacts. Utilizing "Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis"forms from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance procedure, ICU values were determined including traffic increases due to regional growth and previously approved projects. The individual analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B and summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that the three study intersections of Bristol St. North/jamboree Rd., Bristol St./Jamboree Rd. and jamboree Rd./Eastbluff- Ford are projected to have an ICU value of 0.91 or higher. The other study 0 • -7- TABLE 4 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Four Seasons Hotel Expansion _ PEAK 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES LOCATION NB SB EB WB AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Bristol Street North &Jamboree Road 0.13 1.44 1.04 0.06 - - - - Bristol Street &Jamboree Road 0.20 2.00 1.75 0.11 1.27 0.13 - - Coast Highway & Dover-Bayshore Drive - - 0.56 0.06 0.55 0.06 0.10 0.54 Coast Highway & Bayside Drive - - - - 0.62 0.07 0.11 0.58 Coast Highway &Jamboree Road - - 0.19 0.84 0.66 0.09 - - Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.55 0.06 2.20 0.18 - - 1.67 8.24 Jamboree Road & Ford-Eastbluff Drive 0.21 1.72 2.67 0.19 - - - - Jamboree Road & MacArthur Boulevard 0.15 1.75 2.00 0.14 0.07 0.90 1.04 0.07 MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills 0.19 0.03 2.09 0.20 2.00 5.25 - - MacArthur Boulevard & Ford Road 0.24 2.13 1.88 0.17 - - - - TABLE 5 ICU SUMMARY Four Seasons Hotel Expansion EXISTING EXISTING + GROWTH EXISTING + GROWTH + COMMITTED 1993 + GROWTH + COMMUTED + PROJECT INTERSECTION EXISTING + COMMITTED + PROJECT WIMPIIGATIONS Bristol Street North & Jamboree Road AM Peak Hour 0.74 0.86 0.87 - PM Peak Hour 0.85 0.98 0.98 Bristol Street & Jamboree Road AM Peak Hour 0.74 0.97 0.98 0.97 PM Peak Hour 0.70 0.88 0.89 - Jamboree Road & , San Joaquin Hills Road AM Peak Hour 0.58 0.73 0.76 - PM Peak Hour 0.49 0.65 0.66 - Jamboree Road & EastblufF Drive-Ford Road AM Peak Hour 0.57 0.78 0.79 - PM Peak Hour 0.74 0.95 0.95 eo TABLE 5 (Cont.) ICU SUMMARY Four Seasons Hotel Expansion EXISTING EXISTING + GROWTH EXISTING + GROWTH + COMMITTED 1993 + GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT II I'ERSECTION EXISTING + COMMITTED + PROJECT W/MTTIGATIONS i Jamboree Road & MacArthur Boulevard AM Peak Hour 0.60 0.83 0.83 - PM Peak Hour 0.70 0.90 0.90 - MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road AM Peak Hour 0.73 0.87 0.87 - PM Peak Hour 0.67 0.81 0.84 - MacArthur Boulevard & • Ford Road AM Peak Hour 0.65 0.73 0.73 - PM Peak Hour 0.66 0.73 0.75 - * No mitigation measures are needed. The project does not increase the ICU value. to -1U intersections would all have ICU values at or below the 0.90 level. As shown in Table 5, the study intersections of Bristol St. North/Jamboree and jamboree Rd./Eastbluf£-Ford have ICU values of 0.98 and 0.95, respectively. These ICU values were maintained from the existing plus growth plus committed project conditions and did not increase with the project; therefore, the project would have no traffic,impact. The intersection of Bristol Street and Jamboree Road had an increase in the ICU value from 0.97 to 0.98 when the project was added. PARKING A parking study' was completed of the existing parking facilities located within the 600 block of Newport Center Drive in Newport Beach by Unscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers. This study was referenced for the parking analyses. The total parking provided within Block 600 is 3,141 parking spaces,2 which provides parking for the addresses of 600, 610, 620, 630, 660 Newport Center Drive and The Four Seasons Hotel. The total square feet for these buildings, excluding The Four Seasons Hotel is 788,654 s In order to determine the parking requirements for the buildings located within Block 600, a parking ratio of 1 space per 375 square feet would need to be utilized, which was approved by the City of Newport Beach on November 18, 1976 (Use Permit No. 1805).4 A total of 2,103 parking spaces are required for the office buildings. The parking requirements for the exiiting Four Seasons Hotel is 369 parking spaces, which are based upon The Four Seasons Parking Covenant 5 ' Block 600 Parking Study; Llnscott, Law &Greenspan, Engineers; November, 1993. 2 Ib_id.. Table 2 S Ib� Table 1 * AL Table 3 5 Ibid 0 • -11- It was brought to our attention that a Family Fitness Center would be added to the Block 600. This use would require an additional 74 parking spaces above the office use requirements 6 The total parking available (3,141)less the required parking for-the block 600 office buildings, the proposed Family Fitness Center and the existing Four Seasons Hotel (2,546) leaves a parking surplus of 595 parking spaces available within Block 600. The addition of the ballroom facility would delete 41 surface parking spaces that would need to be replaced. The City of Newport Beach parking code for assembly areas is 1 space per 35 square feet. The proposed addition of the ballroom facility (9,000 SF)along with the function lawn area (3,528 SF) would require a total of 358 additional parking spaces that would be required. This would total 399 additional parking spaces needed for the proposed project. As stated previously, the parking supply located within Block 600 has a surplus of 595 parking spaces which would adequately handle the 399 parking spaces needed for the proposed project. SUMMARY This study has examined the traffic factors related to the proposed Four Seasons Hotel ballroom expansion project. Estimates have been made of traffic to be generated by the expansion and the ability of the road system to accommodate the added traffic. The analysis was completed to conform to the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Parking was also examined. The following are the principal findings of the study. 1. The proposed expansion is estimated to generate 310 (280 In, 30 Out)AM peak hour trip ends and 310 (30 In, 280 Out) PM peak hour trip ends. 6 Per a conversation with Linscott, Law and Greenspan,who did a parking study for the Family Fitness Center. i • -12- The 2.5 hour period AM and PM trip ends would be equivalent to the peak hour trip ends. 2. A total of ten (10) study intersections were examined. Seven of the ten study intersections did not pass the "One Percent" test. 3. ICU analyses were completed for the seven intersections. Three of the seven study intersections had ICU values more than 0.90 during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. A parking analyses was performed and a total parking demand of 399 parking spaces would be needed with the ballroom and function lawn expansion. The parking supply located within Block 600 would adequately handle the additional parking spaces. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The project traffic does not increase the ICU values from those shown under existing plus growth plus committed project conditions for the intersections of Bristol St. North/Jamboree and Jamboree/Eastbluff-Ford; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed for the proposed project at these intersections. 2. The ICU value for the intersection of Bristol St./Jamboree Rd. increases from an unacceptable 0.97 to 0.98 during the AM peak hour only. In order to mitigate the intersection during the AM peak hour, a restriction should be placed on the function lawn area. No activities should be allowed before 10:00 AM on the weekdays only. APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES Analysis Anal 1% Traffic Y Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average inter pring _)AM ` Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 8370 q /0 / (a 9554 9(a I2 Southbound 3[o g s 97 27 1 2/�8 Ebo _0_ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: n r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 92)PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6716 135 9 49 -7 0! /0 1 � 22 South bound 4126 g 3 9 3 J Eastbound LWestbound 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 211-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJFCT• A C 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93 AM Peak 21g Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume pVolume Volume Volume rvolume Northbound 4961 00 0 3 y ! J Southbound 951 7?0 /50 '. I Lb'::: : :.= Eastbound 5402 $ J � ' tp(o 0 - Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 7 (I.C:U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 4 4 I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter/Spring 19 93 PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2§ Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Volume 55- ;• Northbound 4671 1, NIL 54007 South 1985 0 -709' . 1:7;�14 ' `. . L'�•: i....'.:� . .•: . t; Eastbound 5952 Q 9 (,9951 951 -70 ' Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2)-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 4- I< l ' • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast H / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average winter/spring IFL37AM Peak 2h Hour Approved [Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project tion Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2�S Hour Peek 2y Hour Peak lu Hour VolumeVolume Vollume volume VVoolumeVolume ound 297 -�' ''/ound 2280 2 (p 27 J�0 25 t14 Eastbound 4164 732 c5070 51 2V i Westbound 4392 / ? / 577 5 zl& �( Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected �i Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast H / Dover Dr/Ba shore Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 93 )PM Peek 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Protected Protect Direction Pealu Hour Vlm Pea Hour Peak l Peaur PeaZeour Peak Volume oume Volume Peak Northbound 277 ',0/Q rl Southbound 2910 Eastbound 4230 1 Westbound 6757 `� " -7 �43 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected J4 Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 1 1 , .` • III 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 92 AM Peak 2+1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 100 of Projected Protect Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 965 Southbound 208 Eastbound 590079 / / Westbound 3856 �O ` `7 11 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 El Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1992 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2's Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1374 2 ' Southbound 179 -�- 2-q9 '12O T I Eastbound 6446 26P�,, 491 -/ 2 1 Westbound 6338 254o —7 575 ! 197 -72 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on erage inter pring 93 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1X of Protected Project Direction Peak 2§•Nour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2►s Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 2y Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1494 50 l(o;55 Southbound 1860 �j 711 2t,0?4 2`7 Eastbound 5212 Westbound 2737 7—_ � � � '!�/ �2`�� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / Jamboree Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93 )PM Peak 2> Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak Hour me Growth Peak Hour Peame k Hour Pea me Volume Hour , Peak Vo1�Hour Northbound 1076 n � /�n 6p1 g 1 0 2 L� / Southbound 3975 (2 �� 1 50 Eastbound 4761 199. 279 5831- 5 � ' Westbound 4062 �(p rJ/7 A17110 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Inter pring 92 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2's Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3684 11 0 50?$ 51 1 /2g Southbound 3844 11 1 bt, 507 5 Eastbound 758 —7&0 g ki Westbound 783 •�- ' 1 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92) FM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2)1 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour i Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume 7, /Voollume , Volume Volume Northbound 3401 2 7 Z5 ']'"/ -3 7 2) Southbound 5055 p t 39 3 1"P406p24,e7l 1 112, Eastbound 414 Westbound 1558 $ ! `� / /-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 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/FORD—EASTBLUFF DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1993 —AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1, s: / Northbound 4161 / (0 9 12 7 5/�0 3 S/V� l�n Southbound 3056 ' "/ qso 'f15� - I -- Eastbqund 937 Westbound „�— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: ¢ 74Sc�1 1G i�r1T � ��(I�A /JGint.� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd Ford Rd Eastbluff Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage toter pring 93 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4932 SouthbDund 4614 Eastbound 1097 '7G• �/ / I Westbound 449 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2g Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE.: r Y � • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BLVD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 3_ AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h No Peak 2k Hour Volume /I rVoolume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2841 f—r7 r �Ztp /�� �� Southbound 1166 7 ) /� 2�`Y71 2-1 1 �- Q Eastbound 3257 �� '�� "74/ 5 LWestbound 2014 `gyp [vlo(o 2�20'' 27 2$ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BLVD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average W—in—t—erlSpring 19 3_ PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of ProjecteTftapVrrkoj2�cHtour Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume volume volume Volume Volumeotume � L:9i /� i1 ' / Northbound 1831 9 �j� 2 �� �7 7� Southbound 2876 ) '? Eastbound 2208 lL [ I 997 3i '21p Luestbound 3631 77 73 3510 45&0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: _ A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 93) AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ` Northbound 2928 9)(02 :4%, Southbound 3785 Eastbound 516 �- �D�O 58IL 12, 1 Westbound 1647 t_ - 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 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2§ Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volumes Volume Volume Northbound 2558 �J�(p ��� 318g ::: I Southbound 4623 282= 5 I 5n d'7 55 Eastbound 1825 Westbound 1121 --- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 23) AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak n Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume q,Y � Northbound 3811 2 3�..4 52 3 SfQlo , �a southbound 4539 Eastbound 454 $ 20 417`I 5 -9- i Westbound 2028 152 two Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization Rr (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93 )PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4038 2,LLI 7 Lv out ound 5626 Shb Eastbound 697 2A 7/7 7 �"i Westbound I 1335 up Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2'1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: e . • APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES DR4190AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH i JAMBOREE ROAD 419D EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AN ____________________________________________________________________ __._____ I IEXISTINCIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lYolume ,I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------i I NL 1 16001 1 9991 0.62s I go 1.0•497-k-1 l6— 10.0-*- i_._______________________________________________________________________________________ _I 1 NY I N.S. 1 1 2942 1 1 59 1 4.,2.1 1 1 -�) I I (-------_------------------------------------------------------.----------------------------I i MR I M.S. I 1 D I 1 1 Q- 1 1 9 !_.. . . .I I------------------------------------------'..___----------------------------------.......__I .. _ I SL I I I I I I -a- I I -6L I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"""I 1 ST i l 440 I g 1 3-7(0 --------3 6400 ------------------3 0.12 :..____...________._. 1 SR 1 1 355 I 1 50 I 1 .-6L I 1 ]---------------------- -------------------------------------I I EL I I I I I I A- 1 1 -0- 1 1 1----------------------------""-------------__------______------------------_____-------.-I i ET I I I I 1 1 2 1 1 -6- 1 1 1----------------------------------_------------------______________________________________1 l ER I I I I I I $ 1 1 $- 1 I _______________________________ i WL I I I I I Is- 11 -}�-- 1 1 i----------_--------------------------------- ____....__. __-____--_.I ] WT I I I I I 12 I I '& I I I----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------I I WR I I I I I I 3 1 1 -0- 1 1 I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________-_I ]EXISTING 1 0.74 1 1 1---------------------________________________________________________p_______ (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 D•p& I 1 I-----------------------------------------------------------------"'----------------..._...1 (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I ------------------------------------------------------_...................................... AProjected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt 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 /� c (�,� / FORM 11 OR4190AM / 15 0ASot45 i IU 1 em— 1:XpmSl0Al BR4190PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & JAMBOREE ROAD 4190 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC HINTER/SPRING 1992 PM _'....................••--....--.......•...............--....-----......_..._._....----...... I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED [PROJECT I PROJECT IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVotume I V/C I ICapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Project[ I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I--------------------------------------•--------•--------•--------•-•••------------•-------- I NL I 160D I I 854 I 0.53 • I &9 1 Q, 58 iN & I0.59K- _-!•---•-_----•------------•---------------' / I NT I N.S. I I 2018 I 1 7/ I //07 I 1 21 I I I-------------------------••---•-••----•----_..-------•---•---•-------•--'•--------•-----•-- I Nit I I I I I I •A' I I g[/ I . I--•-----••--------------------•--------------•---------•..-----_.------------•--------•---- I SL I I I I I I B 9 --•----.-•---•--------------•-------------•..----•_ ----------------------------- ST I I 1220 25 05r a•`ro 3,._ 0•'�0 I--- ---) 6400 ---- ) 0.32 •-•-----'-----.._... .--'-----• "-i I SR I 1 B47 I I //0 I �_. . ------- -----------------•-_---•-.-----• --.-----•._---- ------ EL I I I I i I --6+ I 1 Ia' I I __.._.'--•_..-----•----•-------•--------••----------- ._.._.__.._ •------------- ET I I I I I I I '�___�_......_...I_ 4a I I _-_--------i ER I I I I I I * I $ 1 I .-------•--------.- _._..._._..1 ------ I WL I I I I I 1 0- 1 I -& I I ------•-------------------------•-----..._...----------•---•---•--•_-----------------------I UT I I I I I I /e I I I e. I I ---••---------••---•----•-•-----•••-----------------------•••---'.__....... ._ -•.--•----i I WR I I I I I I LJ I 18 I I ------------------•----•.. _.. - ------.-.--•..--.._...........--........._.... EXISTING i 0.85 I I--------------------------------------------------------------••------------ I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 6, 9? I I -------------------------------••I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.• . I0,9 Q I ...._------••.------•-.-_-___----•--.------•----------•._----•----...--•-------•------.-•---- i_i Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 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: No ImckvATe jN 1Gu PROJECT FORM II BR41900PX 4 i BR4170AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET I JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AN ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IYolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacftyl Volune I Ratio I Vot me I Volume Iw/o Project] I Ratio j I I I Vol une I -.------------------------------------------------------�--------------------------------I NL 1 1 •6- 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I HT I 1 1 2336 1 1 47 1 ,qqL t 6 35 )d12 �OI U �- . I........) 8000 ------------------) 0.29 *_.......... i 1_�- • I MRI I I D I i. -------------- -- ---------- - ---- - SL _ . I ST 1 4800 I 1 440 1 0.09 1 -/ 1 3`1/ 1 0. 1$ 1 2$ 10.1$ I I---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- I SR i I I I I 1 -6- 1 1 -6` I I _--------•--------------•------•---_------------------------_-------- I EL 1 1 1154 1 1 3q( 1 0,17L_ �4( . I-- ET--- i------------------- i----------—^�- - 3200 283 ) 0.45 !'✓ 1 1 ----------- --------------------------- ------------------- ------I ER 1 3200 1 1 935 1 0.29 1 1228 1 0.56 W- I Q,J-! 1 I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- I WL i I I I I 1 J- 1 1 •p- I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WT I I I I I I -6- I I e I I --------i-----=--------------------i-------------- --i---------------------------_.._......I WR -a- I I I I ------ ------------------------- ------- ---------------------_---------------__-----• I NG I I I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EX1ST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.V. 1 C. q �/ I ;--I i I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ � 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. , I D ..................................................................................•---.. . �1_1 Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Rq 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 laprovement: PROJECT FORM It BR4170AM / JL{�0/-�5 �T1;-L� C'�-'P.4hl51oN DR4170PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET i JAMBOREE ROAD 4170 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH ................................................................................. --.... I (EXISTING(PROPOSED IEXISTINGIEXISTING IREGIONALI COMMITTED I 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 ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Votume I I I I------------------------------------------------------------�______----_-----__--__---___I 15� I NL I -----------------I I I ��,•� -----------__-_----_-- I I_________________ :_....I I NT I I 2077 IL12 I- O �2)Fff _. _..) s000 ------------------) o.ze __...___...._..__.. _ z1 I NR I I e I I $ I I I I _,;• I----------------------------------------------------- --- ._... -------------- .. ......I - I St. I I I. I I I TJ I I & I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ] sr I 4e00 I I ton I 0.22 122 I � I I-----------------------------------------------------------/�------------------------ I SR I I I I I I I • �/ I I .6 I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I EL --- --------) 3200 I I ---$69 ) 0.44 I I �d7 - (7� J� �, V• ix- ETI I 541 I IDS ....-_I--------------------------------------------------------- ----------- .-. .I ._....I ER I 3200 I 1 1404 I 0.44 a I l/D.-I-0_1// I 9 I6,49I I------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ I WL I I I i I I .0' I I � I I I--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - I NY I I I I I I .0- I 1 & I I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I WR I I I I I I J9 I I ,i� I I I-----------------------------------i--------i------------------------------------ --------I (EXISTING 0.70 I I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q a I ]EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 10, I 'I I------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. IQ,�91 ............................................................................................. Project + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0." I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement will be less than or equat to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project laprovements will be Less then I.C.U. without project .............................................................. ....... Description of system improvermnt: PROJECT C , I _ _ _L I S�� FORM It BR4170PH J t"K�T•� JAS04SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD t SAN JOAOUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM ----•------------••---•----------------------•-----••-•--•--•----•---••--•_•---------........ I (EXISTING PROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT IMovementl Lanes ' Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C ICapacity�CapacityI Volune i Ratio I Volume i Volume iw/o Project) i Ratio Volume . ._.....---•---------•----------------•- ..... ---- .......�1 NL I 1600 I 1 33 1 0.02 I I 10.02 ( $ V a I-•-------------------------------•--•--•------.-------•---------.--------- I NT I 4WD I 1 1527 1 0.32 = 93 1 rJ 83 10• el& 10, ----------- •................. ................... NR 1 1600 I 1 91 1 0.06 1 1 g 10. 0(p 1 !� 1�•�0 1 I------- --•---------------••-•----.__...-----------•------------.-.----- ...n.�...f', I SL 1 3200 1 1 565 1 0.18 = 1 2 / 14. 19 �/Z 10,/�.. 7�- I•-----••-•----------------------••--------------------•---..___.._--••---••------•--- 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1141 1 0.24 1 4& 1 5�a 10, 3(0 1 & IV� ------------------------------•-•-• -- -•------------•----•-•----••---------••------- -------- SR 1 1600 1 1 22 1 0.01 1 1 6' 1 0.0/ I .e- 10.0/ 1 I------------•-•------------------- ------•----... ----------- ----- --1---•------ ----• I I EL 1 1 269 1 1 I t7 � �a 1•..._...0 4800 ••--••--•---------) 0.06 --------------- 1 ET -- --- -_.I I 41 i I I I --- I I ER 1 N.S. I I 53 1 I 1 .e I I I I -----------------------------------------------------------•-------•----_ ---•--- ...... WL 1 1 74 1 I --------3 4800 i--------I------- ) 0.02 i----------- Wr 11 I + I I ..........I. I WR I N.S. 1 1 2661 1 I ya- 1 1 / 2 1 ---------------------------..___... ... .__._.._-•.._ - ........_._ . .--------- I IEXiSTING 10.58 l I I----------------------------------11--------------- ----i---------1 I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 7 I------------------------------------•---------------------- 3... I._.1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I `............................................................................................. g� Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less 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 JAso45AM JA5O4SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD A, SAN JOAOUIN HILLS ROAD 5D45 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PH ................•-••_-_..._......_.........--•-__._.........__..._..__........--•-•----..._.. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXIS7INGIREGIONALICOl41ITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoluse I V/C I I capacity Pa cit capacity I cit Volune Ratio Volume I Volune Wo Project) I Ratio I VolVolume........................................................................................... WL I i6o0 I 1 89 1 0.06 * 1 /0 1 0.0& 'A-48 10,J� I NT 1 4800 I 1 1198 1 0.25 1 .371 ,-• NR 1 ---- I I 94 I ---- I I --- -- I Q. 0Rf I -- I�.o-- I' I •SL I 320D 1 I 453 1 0.14 1 1 #5 I /& I 10,A.1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1737 1 0.36 * /Q 1 f0ZR 10. 5'/ -k,& 10•Sl I --_•__---------•----•------- --------I I SR 1 -•16OD 1 1 151 1 0.09 1 1 ,? 1 Q /0 1 & I0./01 1 i I l l D � ---- �0• I� 1 EL 1 1 Q___ ________ „11 ET 1 1 28 I 1 (p 1 __..._____I & I I I-•-------••--------•----•-••-_---- --.-••--------------•---•'- -----'. ...._.I ER I N.S. 1 1 63 1 1 1 -0- i_....._._..1 '0" I I --•--•-------I I WL 1 1 157 1 1 Vo Q. OS 28 ro.o(o II,�•, I-------> 4800 ------- 0.05 I_.........._�._ - I 60. _..__---•-- I - I WR 1' N.S. 1 1 300 1 I I l,'0 1 _____.__..� /12' 1-------- ----------•--•--------..-_i----•_--i-----------•__----- . _-•---' I I 0.49••••--•--_-•--•-----•------------ EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 ___._ I•-•-------------------------------------------- .--- --•_.-__..____ _--_._-•- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10 yo 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 inprovenent 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 isprovement: PROJECT ^ FORM I1 JA504SPH A 55- .s Ao-TtFl— SIJ� JA49BOAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM -•...............•---.....................---................................-----........... I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PX MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I I ICapaeitylCopaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I volume I I I I...........................................................................................I I NL 1 3200 I 1 282 1 0.09 1 1 /�? I----------------------------------------------- ------- ----- I HT ) 4800 1 1 1587 ) 0.34 [ 1 `Y ' 1 ��3 �•T9.7�_� .. �: � --- i................. i.. .....i..i2.._ ... I 1 I 38 I............................................�--.--_.----I--..._..----------------- ..... I SL 1 1600 1 1 25 1 0.02 1 -6 10,02 $' 10,0p< ----------------------------------------------•-------------- ------------ s-_------.... ST 1 4800 1 1 1279 1 0.27 1 52- 1 49 01 0. 3 P 1112 10,A101 -----•--..------•--------------------•--------•-------- --.-----------I I SR 1 1600 1 1 20 1 0.01 1 1 9- 1 0.0/ 1 $ 1 a,0/ I ►--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I EL 1 1600 1 1 122 1 0.08 1 1 / 101 0? I 10.08' I I...................................................................... ....................I I ET 1 1600 1 1 176 1 0.11 1 1 /0 1 0. /Q 1 .9 10, IZ1 ...........................................................................................I ER 1 1600 1 1 215 1 0.13 • 170 1 �� �g �' 1 �,/0 ........................................................... ...... ......... .............. I WL 1 1 55 1 1 21 .. ._4oq. t ooS�C- 4800 ..................) 0.08 ----------------- I WT 1 I 333 I I f 1........... I I ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------I I WR 1 1600 1 1 31 1 0.02 1 1 50 10. 05, I a 10,051 ......................................................•--•------------------•--------------I IEXISTING I ---- I ------------------------------ I 1EX1ST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED w/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I-----••-----------------------------------------•-------.---------.-----------•----•-------I [EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.L.U. 10 79 1 ..................•-.....----.....--..-••.....-----.•.--.......................•----------.-- (� Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_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 wilt be Less than I.C.U. without project .........................................................•-••--•-------.................. Description of system improvement: PROJECT �i FDRM 11 JA4980AN 4- St�.s .JsVY�L Z�7 JICy1 0 JA49SOPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FDRD ROAD 4980 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING .---..--.---•1993 PM. I •• •IEXISTINGIPRDPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT( (Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PX MR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVolune I V/C I ( Icapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volune I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I' I I Volune I I ------ I NL 1 3200 1 1 288 1 0.09 • I Jt' / I �• �� 10.��. I NT 1 1 (og n 167s o.36 ! i 5__..... D.�5.Q__.!I t--- Q:�1 I-. MR __) 4B00 ---------i....._-.) 66 1 I I SL I 1600 ( I ,,, I 0.07 1 13o 10, 0 g I $-10,0. . .I -----•---------------------------------'--------q-------•--/-_-- 2168 0.45 g$ G J3 f//I( ST I 4Boo I I I I 10. 2, ... .... I sR 1 1600 1 I 4D I 0.03 1 10, 103 3l I----------------------------------------------- ................................ 1 EL I 160D 1 I 32 1 0.02 I 12 1 0. 02' _I__ I ...... -••--••--••.............. _._... I ET 1 1600 1 1 98 1 0.06 I I 1 0, 0l00 1 I D 061 __________________________________________Q...____....Q.._._,_p_. i__..... ER ' 1 1600 1 1 274 1 0.17 12-/ 10• / — )9 D, -------------------------------------------------- ................ 1I WL i -— ........) 4800 ----••••-!•-__- •) 0.03 -•••-••---- -- WT --I WR I 160D 1 I 14 1 0.01 1 130 ................. Q0 I -------------------------------------------------------------- . ......... .. EXISTING I i............................................................................ (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I O, 9 5 I I -------------------- .......... (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.L.U. I . •.-•.-.-••...............•...--.•-....._...__.._.._.__...•--•• .•-•.--.•..••..- 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 (_( Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project ..............................'--.._...__..._....---..._.....__..._.... Description of system improvement: NO 1MQZe: kSE 1FJ 1 GU, PROJECT FORM 1I 4( C r�" . •S�J� JA4980PM T �J • JA427SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RDCE•W) i MACARTHUR BLCN-S) 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED CNI AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING-----.--._-•--1993 AM I ••- ••1EXISTINGIPROPOSED IEXISTING(EXISTING(REGIONAL(COMMITTED( PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI Movement l Lanes I Lanes B JECT Ratio VIC CapecitylCapecityl Vol m Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/oCProject;Volume i Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I ----•................�.1.........••I I NL ( 1600 1 1 179 1 0.11 I _--__--1_-�.__1.0, 1 h 1 •CT 10_12.1 _._-------•--•___..-------•-...- --"" NT !.... ! 1047 0.27 I • NR "} 4800 I I 227 } 1 -•---------------------••-•--------D------ I SL 1 1600 I 1 60 1 0.04 • 1 1/0 1 0, 11 4,45 1 O,/ ...-- 1 ST i 4800 I ' 336 I 0.07 120 1 2& 10, 1 1 y4 ___SR_.i__.N•S•.i .__.___i_.__169 i_______.i._____..i_.�5__i.. 1 � I I ..................:....I 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 498 1 0.16 • I 05 1.012( !`Q 10, G/ ..............•. .........---------------_- ' ET 1 4800 1 1 919 1 0.19 1 /g 14/p2 10.Zg 1 3 1 L'.11 -----------------------•------•---••----••-•-_--•-•------g--------- ER I N.S. 1 1 921 1 1 20 I I .--------•---_--.•_------•-•------------------•---"I........I---•--........ WL 1 3200 1 1 174 1 0.05 1 1 I p,07 1 �& 1017.1 .__.----.•--.•___•_._•.............................. -. 1 ----.i._... 1 I • 121 27(o10 19 4- WT4--- --- 0.13------------------------------------- 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 162 1 1 1 1(0 1 ! �' I I _._-------•---------- -----------•---I (EXISTING 1.C.U.--•---•-.--•--••-•-•! 0.60 1 1....D IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I.................................... EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSE p:83 1 - - _-_•-.--•_--.--_-•----.---•-•.---__------•.--•-•---- 1•----..._ IEXI STING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. zi `......................•......-•.........••...--...--..--...._..._._...._--....._--- !�._. .. DCI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.L.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wi'll 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 /� •^.r 'S �- un� * )G FORK 11 JA4275AM w JA427SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD(E-W) L MACARTHUR BOULEVARD(N-S) 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM ...•.............................••-----------___-__-__-_---_--------•------•-•--•----------- I I EXISTING I PROPOSED(EXISTING(EXISTING I REGIONAL(COMMITTED I PROJECTED (PROJECT I PROJECT IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio JVotume I V/C I I ICapacity1capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volune lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I i...................................------------------------------------------------------- -I I NL 1 1600 1 1 286 1 0.18 * 1 20 10,19 -k-9 10, l9 l)(- .----_•-------- ---------•-----••-2 ----------------------- r7 NT 1 1 391 1 '--------) 4800 I-----------------) 0.11 i--- i.._......I I I MR --- -4-/ I SL i 1600 i I in I . 0.11 1 0,/2- I ---------------------------------------------------------- -------- i ST i 4800 1 1 874 1 0.18 * :55-------- I 41Q, 2L/ A— 1 0 2y I1 t 7c -------- - SR N.S. I I 470I I i6-- I I -6 I __. ---- . -- ---------•--------•----- ------ - - - IEL 3200 1 229 0.07 - a. L � 8 ib2I ----------------------------------------------------- -------- I ET 1 4800 1 1 640 1 0.13 1 /3 1 271 1 0, 19 1 2? V,�Q I I---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------I I ER I N.S. 1 1 16 1 1 1 5 1 1 -0- 1 1 I-•----•---------------------------------------•-••----------•------------------------------I I WL I 3200 I 1 101 1 0.16 1 1 ,5z 10, /7 1 0' 10,/71 I - ------------- 1 I WT 1 4800 1 1 1299 I 0.27 • 2lo 13�0 1 � I --------- -------•---_---•------------------ --- ----------------- --- - 1 WR I H.S. 1 1 67 1 1 1 � 10. 3 -1 -G3, I I l ---•--------•------------------------------------------------- ------------------•--- -I (EXISTING 1 0.70 1 I I ------•------------------------------------------•--•---•------o-S�-- 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 0_94 ...............................•.........-•---....•......--......._....__._...------..._..... 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 FORMAT I JA427SPH MA5070AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD i SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM ..................................'-.......--......_.....------'-----...........---.......... I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK 8R I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICapaeitylCapacityl 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 1 1600 1 1 75 1 0.05 • I ---------- ------ --- - -------------- I NT 1 4800 1 1 1232 1 0.26 115 GZ-1 /403 10.3h I -a— I t�,3ZI I ------------------------------•-----------------._.------------•----------..-_._._..--. -I I NR 1 1600 1 1 9 1 0.01 1 1 $ 1 0, 01 1 $— 10.611 -------------- ------ ------------_------' - --------_--- SL 1 3200 1 1 211 1 0.07 1 1 5 10, 07 1 0- 10.07 ------------- ------- -------------- -----•- ---------------- ST 1 3200 1 1 958 1 o.30 • 5 1 2.g/ 10,,f/ � &10.?�l }� I----------------------------•---....---------------------------._---------- -----------f 1 SR I N.S. 1 1 612 1 1 1 &-5 1 I qQ I I "......-•------------------------- -.-._..----- ---'_.. EL I1 - 320D - - 81 - 0.03 /7 �0.0 L � -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------------_--------/47 ! _- ---. �-. ET 115 -------- 4800 ------------------ 0.03 - - ER . ,.I I I I 401 I I $ I ..-------I' - I I I WL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.D1 1 1 8- 1 4' IQ.0J 1 -------------- ----------- -- - - --------------- - I WT 1 3200 1 1 220 1 0.07 1 1 3/ 1 0,0F 1 49, 10.6F I I---------------------------------•---------- ---------------- -- -^--�--..-----1 WR 1 1600 •• 1 552 1 0.35 • 1 5/ 1 0,-? -). -17 I 0.7e1� I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------•-------- -P-- (EXISTING 1 0.73 1 1 ---- IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I............................................................. . ..-- 7........... . (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 I •--.•------'................'--.........................--.---................_......._...... **Right turns only from single lane (�Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_l 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 /� xJ't' t-4S FORK ll MA5070AM "7— �-Ij� S r � • KA5070PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD i SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5070 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM _.---••----••................................................................................ I I EXISTING IPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALI COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementI Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH i PROJECT I V/C Ratio ]Volume I V/C I I lCapacitylespacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Voluae I I I I NL i 1600 1 ] 41 1 0.03 * 1 i (7.V J --------------•-•-------.---------------------_..........I NT . __...1 4800 1 - i.. 104 I 112q 1 l57 10.2 I I 8 0,2$I ---------------------- ----I MR 1 1600 1 1 11 1 0.01 1 1 $ 10, 0/ I A• 10, 011 1 •.-------.--- ------ -------.----- I St. 1 3200 1 1 439 1 0.14 1 1 30 1 0./5 1 fir 10,/51 ---------------------------------------•----------------------------------_------------•----.._._._____--•-- 1 sr l 3200 1 1 1291 1 0.40 * 7� 125`f 10. S 1 '� 10,51 - --------------------- SR - ..__..._... --- --•I---N-S---------•---.----------•----------- I /(o I ..............I I EL I 320D I I SD4 I 0.16 ' 1 80 1 I--------------------------•------------------- - - ---og --------- ET 297 -__ET_.-) 4800 ..................) 0.07 I_...__.-!-58 I I ------ .0•._•._.I. -. Q dQ 1 ER 1 I / �_ 17 -----•----- 1 WL 1 16DO 1 1 13 1 0.01 1 1 1 0, 01. 1 _Q- 10,01 1 ----------------•-•-----------•---------•------••----------------o e- ao 141 2 0, 9 . ------ '�1 I._...__.) 4800 ..................) 0.08 -•-••-•-------.•. . . 1 I WR 1 1 262 1 1 7 1 I I I (EXISTING ..........................I 0.67 l I 1-------------------------------------'-----------..._........._..-------.... 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0. I I I-------------------------------------•------------------------ ------------------•......... i 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U..-••-••---------------------I O_Q71 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 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Will be Less than J.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT A — IS ' L` 1'+`^, FORK 11 MA5070PM � �''S1� '� • i i KA498SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD L FORD ROAD 4935 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993' PM •-----••..................................•__•-_....._......-_............................... I (EXISTING IPRDPOSED IEXISTINGIEXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT IPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PX 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 NL 1 3200 I 1 56 1 0.02 1 I /�' 1 0,02. 1 $ 16,02.1 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 NT i 4800 I I 1682 I 0.35 • �Q2 i �T5 I �, 7V * 99 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- i MR i N.S. 1 1 23 1 1 1 ar I I -& I I 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------..---------------I I SL I 3200 I 1 664 1 0.21 • 1 53 16,Q2 )4--& 10, 1--------------------------------------------------------------------- /------------- ...,./�f.I I ST I 4800 I 1 1895 1 0.39 1 1/5 1 2i3( I---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ^_.. - I SR I N.S. I 1 551 1 . 1 .0' 1 1 I I I...........................................................................................1 EL 1 3200 1 1 31 1 0.01 I e 1 0, 0 10. 0/ . I----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----I-.-------- r ET 1 3200 1 1 161 1 0.05 1 1 /0 10 . 05 1 .6 10,051 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ER 1 1600 1 1 85 1 0.05 1 1 & 10. 6 I o 10.61 I------------------------------------------------- I WL 1 1600 1 1 36 1 0.02 1 1 e- 10,0 2 I q 10,n I ---------------------------------- -------------------- -- _-i.-.-.'i___.__'�-i------. -- " "- I--------) 4800 ------------------' 0.09 .----------------- D d I WR I I 326 I IZ I I F? I I I-------------------------------- -------- ................ ......I (EXISTING 1 0.66 1 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1EX1ST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 007 1 I 1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 16, 751 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT ¢. �� �L ��(}Z.4t15�Q I FORM 11 MA4985PM KA4985AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD i FORD ROAD 4985 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM ................'..__......._..._._....._.._..........-----......................._.._.._.... I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTIRGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoluma I V/C I i ICapacitylCopacityl Volune I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Project) I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I----------------------------------------------------------------- - 19'-•---- ---------"'----I I HL 1 3200 I 1 113 1 0.04 I I $ I Q,DW 10,04 1 _______________________________________________________________I I NT 1 4800 I 1 1664 1 0.35 01 1 2(0 10,'7/� I•---•-------•-----•------------•--------------••------•-'•••-----••--•------------'•---".. i MR I N.S. I 1 19 1 1 1 0- I 1 .B- 1 1 I______________________________________________________________________p____�.__..._-_---I I SL 1 32001 1 2761 0.09 - 1 5j I0,0 ! •s� 10,�}- I------------------------------------------------' ----- -•--------•-1' I ST 1 4800I I 17031 0.351 �v/ I• �03 IO, I7b .lOt!.L.� I________________________________________________________•-.__________ .-___.._____ I SR I N.S. 1 1 46 1 1 1 S- 1 1 .-9- 1 I I-------•------------•---•-•-----•••--------------------•--•-----------•---------•----'•----I 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 32 1 0.01 + I ©- 16, 01 - - I•-•---------•••---••--•-•--•---•------------••--•-------•------•------- ET 1 3200 1 1 145 1 0.05 1 I )O 10, 05 I .0- _10,05 I __________________________________________________________________________________ ________I ER 1 1600 1 1 54 1 0.03 I I & 10, n 1 -d' 1p,),-� I ___________________________________________________________________________________________I WL 1 1600 1 1 12 1 0.01 1 1 20 I O.OZ 1 49 10,a I I----••-------------•-------------------------•--••-----•----•--- •-••------•--•-------•-I I WT 1 I 279 I I $ I 0.21 10.211 .. ........0 4800 ..................0 0.20 ---••-•-•' ..._. .._..... --- I WR 1 1 661_.........� 1 S(o 1)._... 1 -4 1 1 ---------------•- --•-----•---_---- --- -------I 1EXISTING - ••. 1 0.65 1 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --•- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 6,r.7 I I I---••--'•--•--------•----•----'•---"'-------'••---"•-•---'•'"-•••-------•-----"------__.1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 16.73 .--"...................................'•..---..-•---.._.....___.___._.....__.._........._.. Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems 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 ' 1 FORM It MA4985AM