Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTS102 4P COMMISSIONERS - MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL INDEX CALL Mr. Leonard Fish rebutted portions of the March 9, 1995, PI Commission Minutes concerning Pacific View Memorial Park. Posting of the A eg nda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that a Planning Commission Agenda Agenda was posted on Friday,April 14, 1995 ' front of City Hall. Request for Continuance Request for Director Hewicker stat at the applicant, Britta K. Pulliam, requested Continuance that Item No. 6, Us emit No. 2045 (Amended), property located at 109-111 Palm S eet, Gringa's Grill, be continued to the Planning Commission ting of May 4, 1995,to provide additional time to resolve concerns r ding the in-lieu parking requirement. Motion Mot n was made and voted on to continue Item No. 6 to the May 4, All Ayes 5,Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Traffic Study No. 102(Public Hearing) Item No.l Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a Ts 102 retail commercial project which contains 27,000 square feet of retail Approved development. LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 7743 (Resubdivision No. 483)located at 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwesterly comer of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES \ 9� 9'2O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL INDEX CALL APPLICANT: Sanderson/J.Ray Development,Irvine OWNER: Larken,Inc.,Arlington,Texas William Laycock, Current Planning Manager,recommended that Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A", be deleted from the findings and conditions inasmuch as the condition does not apply to the subject application. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding traffic mitigation and the projected traffic count at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, Don Webb, Public Works Director, replied that the traffic projection at the foregoing intersection is an additional .005 and he explained the City's policy for an ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization)if 1 percent is not exceeded. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jay Sanderson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit"A", as amended. In reference to Condition No. 2, Exhibit "A", Mr. Sanderson requested that the floor area ratio be increased from 27,000 square feet to 27,948. Mr. Webb explained that based on the-allowable 109 peak hour trips when the Planning Commission approved General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A) on October 4, 1990,the development would be limited to 27,948 square feet. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Traffic Study No. 102, subject All Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit"A",to amend Condition No. 2 to read `...up to 27,948 square feet..", and to delete Condition No. 3. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour -3- Ys� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Rho\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL INDEX CALL traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy IA8. 2. That the Traffic study indicates that the traffic projected one year after project completion, during any a.m./p.m. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection, would have no adverse short-term traffic impact. 3. That although there will be a slight increase of 0.005 at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road,no significant traffic impact is expected. CONDITIONS: 1. That subsequent development plans shall be compatible with the land uses evaluated in Traffic Study No. 102. Any subsequent proposed development deemed by the City Traffic Engineer to be outside scope of Traffic Study No. 102 shall be subject to a new traffic study. 2. If subsequent site development plans for parcel 2(Site 5) indicate a floor area ratio in excess of 27,948 sq.ft., additional traffic studies shall be required to demonstrate the adequacy of the circulation system to accommodate the proposed development. If such studies indicate that improvements are required to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project, such improvements may be made a condition of project approval. Use Permit No. 3429 Amended (Review) Continued Discussion Item No.2 Request to en a previously approved use permit that permitted the UP3429A construction of a han ash and detailing facility which also included the sale and dispensing of gaso' eon property located in the RSC-H No. Action District. Said approval also allowed a pb fi of the proposed building to Taken exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/3 t Height Limitation District. The proposed amendment involves a request to athe retail sales of auto accessories, fresh flowers, soft drinks and pre-prepar d -4- )P TY OF NWORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS q MINUTES June 8, 1992 ROLL rA L INDEX ere being no objections from the Co il, the City Manager was directed to in tigate further to determine whether o of a refund is warranted. Hearing no one a wishing to address the Council, the p is hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Ord No. All Ayes 92-27. 3. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing regarding: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-3(A) - Request GPA 90-3(A) to amend the Land Use Element of the (45) General Plan so as to eliminate the additional 119 hotel rooms approved for the SHERATON HOTEL SITE; change the development entitlement from hotel rooms to Retail and Service Commercial uses; and establish an allocation of 41,750 square feet of commercial development for the proposed General Commercial Site 5 in the Newport Place Planned Community; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document; AND PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 745 - CA 745 Request to amend the Newport Place (94) Planned Community District Regulations so as to redesignate the existing Sheraton Hotel Site from Hotel Site IA and 1B to Hotel Site 1 and General Commercial Site 5; AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 78 - Request to rtfe Stdy approve a traffic study so as to allow 8 the construction of 41,750 square feet of retail commercial development in the proposed General Commercial Site 5; AND RESIIBDIVZSIOft No. 980 - Request to Resub 980 resubdivide the existing Sheraton Hotel Site into two parcels of land. Report from the Planning Department. The Planning Director reported that the proposed project, as originally submitted by the applicant, would allow a maximum of 41,750 square feet of commercial development. In reviewing this proposal, staff identified two major concerns, potential traffic M impacts and development feasibility. As a result of these concerns, which are enumerated in the staff report, staff drafted an alternative to the proposed project, which consists of a reduced density development of a maximum 31,362 square feet. Staff believes this alternative would allow development of the site at an intensity that is commensurate with other similarly situated parcels in the area, and would • t Volume 46 Page 194 { • i '­ CITY OF NEWPORT HEA� COUNCIL hQ1BFl2S ,p MINUTES June 8, 1992 INI EX ROLL CRI1 maintain the integrity of the City's 7(A) A 90-3 long-range transportation planning. This alternative would also eliminate the project's potential to cause traffic volume to exceed City standards at the intersection of Jamboree and MacArthur. In response to question raised by Council Member Hart, the Planning Director commented that there are no specific plans for construction of the proposed project as, it only involves the one 2.4 acre parcel. If the amendment is approved, then plans would be prepared in accordance with development standards outlined in the PC text, and neither the Planning Commission nor City Council would review those plans so long as the plans conform to the PC standards. Kith regard to a reduction in parking, John Douglas of the Planning Department, advised that there are currently 610 parking spaces on the hotel property, and pursuant to the Zoning Code, hotel is required to maintain 349 parking spaces, and it's those excess parking spaces which will be converted into commercial entitlement. In actuality, the hotel will be retaining 352 parking spaces. The parking requirements for the commercial site (2.4 acre parcel under consideration), would be determined at the time the plans come in for development. The subject proposal would also establish a 50 foot height limit for the commercial site, Jerry Bame, representing the applicant, addressed the Council and stated that, their proposal is the culmination of approximately 1-1/2 years of work with the Planning staff, and they view the application as a downzoning of the property. He stated that although they are disappointed with the recommended a lower intensity of 31,362 sq. ft. , as suggested by the Planning staff, they feel they can live with it as well as the recommended conditions of approval. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to: Approve the project Ayes as recommended by the Planning All A y Commission, and adopt Resolution No. 92- 57 approving General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A) to pprovide for a mszimum of 31,362 sq. ft. of Retail and Service Commercial other than hotel and motel on a portion of the Sheraton site; adopt Resolution No. 92-58 approving Planning Commission Amendment No. 745 to the Newport Plrre Planned Community District Regulations to provide for a maximum of 31,362 sq. ft. of general commercial development on a portion of Sheraton Hotel site; and sustain the action of the Planning Commission in approving Traffic Study No. 78 and Resubdivision No. 980. Volume 46 - Page 195 Planning Commission Meeting Apri120, 1995 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Traffic Study No. 102, (Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study to allow the construction of 27,000 square feet of retail commercial development in General Commercial Site 5,located in the Newport Place Planned Community. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 7742-43 (Resubdivision No. 483), located at 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, on the norththwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Sanderson/J. Ray Development, Irvine OWNER: Larken Inc.,Arlington,Texas ENGINEER: Katz,Okitso and Associates,Tustin Applications The application is a request to approve a Traffic Study in compliance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. If approved, the study will allow the development of 27,000 square feet of retail commercial on a 2.4-acre site on the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. Traffic Study procedures are contained in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy L-18. TO: Planning C mission-'Z Background , On October 4, 1990, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend ,the initiation .of General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A) to amend the Land Use Element eliminating 119 hotel rooms previously approved for the Sheraton Hotel Site, and change the entitlement to general commercial allowing approximately 41,750 sq.ft of retail development The City Council, at its meeting of October 22, 1990, sustained the recommendation of the Planning Commission. On May 7th, 1992 the Planning Commission approved the projectwith a reduced development of'31,362 square feet The City Council, on June 8, 1992 approved the project as recommended by the Planning Commission. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy K-3,an Initial Study was prepared for the project under General Plan Amendment 90-3(A). Staff has reviewed the study and it has been determined that, since the proposed project is of a similar type and lower density, the Initial Study is adequate to serve as the environmental document for the project under consideration. Based'upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has also 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 project's approval. The findings contained in the Negative Declaration are deemed valid for the proposed project. Therefore, a copy of it is attached for the Planning Commission's review. Conformance with the General Plan The.site is located in Statistical Area L4 and is designated for Retail and Service Commercial by the City's General Plan Land Use Element, therefore the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan guidelines. The project is outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and approval of a Coastal Development Permit is not required. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The subject property consists of two parcels of land,surrounded by Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, and Corinthian Way within Newport Place Planned Community District To the west of the property, across Birch Street is a number of office and retail uses. To the north,and east of the site is Koll Center office development To the south, across Corinthian Way is a retail commercial center. The property owner's representative has indicated that the owner has an immediate intention of resubdividing and developing this property with an anticipation that a 2.4 acre TO: Planning Commission-3. parcel could be created from the excess land. No specific development plans have been submitted. Traffic Anal The proposed 27,000 square feet retail project will generate approximately 1215 new vehicle trips per day which will result in traffic increases on streets in the area. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that a traffic study is necessary under the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A traffic study has been completed for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Council Policy L-18. The results of the traffic study are summarized below. The study is attached for the information of the Planning Commission. From a total of twenty one (21) intersections that could potentially be affected by the project, three intersections were identified which exceeded the one percent volume threshold for Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) analysis as follows: MacArthur Blvd. at Birch Street (AM and PM) MacArthur Blvd. at jamboree Rd. (PM) MacArthur Blvd. at Newport Place Dr./ Von Karman (PM) ICU analysis was performed for the above intersections, and indicated that the ICU values of two intersections: MacArthur Blvd. at Birch Street and MacArthur Blvd. at Newport Place Drive/Von Karman Ave. would remain within acceptable levels, between 0.37 and 0.61 respectively,with the addition of the proposed project There will be a slight increase of 0.005 at MacArthur Blvd. and jamboree Rd. during PM peak hours. The study concluded that the proposed project would have no significant short-term traffic impacts, but could exacerbate a deficient condition at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and jamboree Road over the long term. No mitigation measures were required by the traffic study. Site Access and Circulation. Access to the site is provided from Birch Street and Corinthian Way. At the completion of the construction, the two existing drive-ways on the northerly side of Corinthian Way would serve as the primary access points. To ensure adequate circulation between the two affected parcels, a reciprocal easement between the existing Sheraton Hotel Site and the future Retail Commercial Site 5 has been made a part of the conditions of approval of the approved Parcel Map. Parking. Currently, there are 610 parking spaces available for the Sheraton Hotel operation. Based on the existing hotel facility, the 349 room hotel is required to maintain 349 parking spaces. A parking study was conducted for the proposed site under previous Traffic Study No. 78 which concluded that 258 parking spaces are in excess of the existing hotel needs. The 352 parking spaces proposed to remain as part of the Sheraton Site (Parcel 1), would TO: Planning Commission-4. • adequately meet the existing hotel parking requirement Since the proposed project is ' lacking specific development plans at this time, specific parking demand for the proposed General Commercial Site 5 would be examined and determined in greater detail through the City's Municipal Code Section 20:38.030(d) and Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations when.construction plans are submitted. Conclusions and Specific Findings Based on the information contained in the traffic report prepared for the proposed project, the development would not.cause nor make worse,an.unsatisfactory level of service on any "major", "primary-modified" or "primary" roadway as defined in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy L-18. Should the Planning Commission desire to approve this proposal,findings for approval are included in the attached Exhibit"A". No findings for denial have been provided since the project meets the criteria for approval set forth in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D.HEWICKER,Director By ' Aziz M.Aslami Associate Planner f..\nzlz\Is702\3InGPi1 Attachments: 1. Exhibit"A" 2. Traffic Study No.102 3. Negative Declaration 4. Vicinity Map ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT"A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO.102 A. TRAFFIC STUDY NO.102 FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15AO of Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy L-18. 2. That the Traffic study indicates that the traffic projected one year after project completion, during any a.m./p.m. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection,would have no adverse short-term traffic impact. 3. That although there will be a slight increase of 0.005 at Mac Arthur Boulevard and jamboree Road,no significant traffic impact is expected. CONDITIONS: 1. That subsequent development plans shall be compatible with the land uses evaluated in Traffic Study No. 102- Any subsequent proposed development deemed by the City Traffic Engineer to be outside scope of Traffic Study No. 102 shall be subject to a new traffic study. 2. If subsequent site development plans for parcel 2(Site 5) indicate a floor area ratio in excess of 27,000 sq.ft, additional traffic studies shall be required to demonstrate the adequacy of the circulation system to accommodate the proposed development. If such studies indicate that improvements are required to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project; such improvements may be made a condition of project approval. 3. The Planning Commission may add conditions of approval to Traffic Study No. 102, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of Traffic Study No. 102, upon a determination that the operation and conduct of the Quick Turnaround Rental Car Service facility, operated by AVIS Rental Car or any of its successors, granted by this traffic study, is detrimental to the health, safety,peace,or general welfare of the community. 1 5 Traffic Phasing Ordinance for a Commercial Development at MacArthur Blvd and Corinthian Way in the City of Newport Beach March 28, 1995 Prepared for: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard ty"" %• Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 ��s t2,; �5 i (714) 644-3225 Prepared by: Katz, Okitsu & Associates 17852 17th Street, Suite 107 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573.0317 Job No.: J95736 b Katz, Okitsu & Associates 17852 E. Seventeenth Street, Suite 107 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-0317 Fax: (714) 573-9534 March 28, 1995 Mr. John H. Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92659-1768 Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study for a Commercial Development at MacArthur Blvd and Corinthian Way Dear Mr. Douglas: In accordance with your authorization, Katz, Okitsu & Associates has completed the subject study for a proposed commercial development located on the property of the existing Sheraton Hotel in the City of Newport Beach. The report was prepared according to the guidelines of the Traffic Engineering staff at the City. Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions about the report, or if you need additional information. It has been a pleasure to prepare this report for the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, Rock E. Miller, P.E. Principal .Mp1..,WX1957361BH Traffic Phasing Ordinance for a Commercial Development at MacArthur Blvd and Corinthian Way in the City of Newport Beach Prepared for: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225 Prepared by: Katz, Okitsu & Associates 17852 17th Street, Suite 107 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-0317 �OQAOFESSIpN�< .• U m March, 1995 No 1139 * 6:pfres 8/00/98 s�T TRAFF10 c�P FOF CAtft 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TRIPGENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 INTERSECTIONANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 SITEANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendices: A. Peak 2 1/2 Hour 1% Work sheets B. Near-term ICU Work sheets LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Number Title Number 1 VICINITY MAP 4 2 SITE PLAN 5 3 PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 9 4 PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 5 PROJECT PEAK 2 1/2 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11 6 PROJECT PEAK ONE HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 12 LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title pacle 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS 3 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES & TRAFFIC VOLUMES 7 3 ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY - TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 15 4 TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE 23 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION - TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Newport Beach has received an application to allow for construction of a commercial project on a 2.45 acre parcel located northwest of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. The parcel would be formed from surplus lands adjoining the existing Sheraton Hotel near the John Wayne Airport. The proposed development for the site would include 27,000 square feet (sf) of retail space. A 19, 100 sf Staples Office Supply store is expected to be the principal tenant. The land for the proposed site is currently used as excess parking for the hotel. The project would be located on the northwest corner of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. MacArthur Boulevard will form the east boundary for the proposed project. Corinthian Way will border the site on the south. The remainder of the Sheraton parcel will bound the parcel on the north and west. The site plan for the proposed project shows full access, including left turns onto Corinthian Way. Direct access to MacArthur Boulevard would be prohibited. The parcel will also have access across the Sheraton Hotel parcel to its driveways. METHODOLOGY A traffic study typically describes and evaluates existing conditions for circulation facilities in the vicinity of the site which could potentially be affected by traffic associated with the proposed project. This includes identification of existing roadway improvements, current traffic levels, and current operating conditions. Traffic associated with previously approved developments and from committed circulation improvements are then considered, to determine the traffic conditions likely to result in the near future if the proposed project does not proceed. Traffic forecasts are prepared for the subject development proposal and the effect of development related traffic is assessed. Future traffic operating conditions are assessed to determine if the proposed development will have any impact upon the circulation system. If unacceptable conditions are forecast, potential reasonable circulations would be suggested which would improve or preserve forecasted traffic operational conditions. If the need for such improvements can be reasonably attributed to the proposed project, then the project might be required to fund or construct the necessary improvements. If a portion of the needs can be attributed to the project, funding of this proportionate share might also be required. NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE' ' All proposed developments in the City of Newport Beach must comply with the provisions of the City Is Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . This City Ordinance specifies a procedure for identifying the potential impact of a proposed project. The procedure is essentially a two step process. The first step evaluates the'•peak two-and-one-half hour traffic increases for the proposed project on roadway approaches to significant intersections in a large portion of the City. Each approach is then analyzed to determine if the proposed project will cause a it increase in traffic volume on any approach during the AM or the PM peak period. If the one percent increase criteria is met, the intersection must be analyzed in detail in the corresponding peak hour to determine if it will cause a significant traffic impact at the intersection. If a significant traffic impact is forecast,, the project may be required to mitigate or participate in mitigation of the location.. Various streets and intersections will •require the first step analysis for the proposed project, however only a small number of intersections were found to require a detailed analysis. The streets and intersections subject to the first step analysis in this report are shown on Table 1. A predecessor company of Katz,, Okitsu & Associates, Rock E. Miller and Associates previously studied potential developments on this site. The previous study analyzed both a City General Plan Amendment for the site and potential developments for compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The general plan amendment was adopted for the site in 1992, following the completion of these studies. The study examined a variety of preliminary development plans. All development plans contained more development than the proposed plan, and there was a ,provision for fast food restaurants on all development alternatives. The study determined that traffic mitigation may be required in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment if the outbound peak hour traffic for the parcel exceeds 109 trips. The location of the proposed project and the local and regional circulation system are shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 presents a site plan showing the proposed development. 2 iz I� Table 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS Staples office Supply Project North/South Street East/West Street Time Period MacArthur Boulevard Birch Street AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Campus Drive AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Boulevard AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Newport P1 Drive/ Von Karman Avenue AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Birch Street AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Campus Drive AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Bristol Street (S) AM and PM Birch Street Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Birch Street Bristol Street (S) AM and PM Campus Drive Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Campus Dr/Irvine Av Bristol Street (S) AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Bison Avenue AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Ford Road AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard San Joaquin Hills AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard San Miguel Drive AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Eastbluff/University AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Bison Avenue AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Eastbluff/Ford Rd AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Easy Coast Hwy AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard San Joaquin Hills AM and PM 3 13 John Wayne Airport Orange County � P PROJECT SITE O ii M Pf Jy shhbn Way Sf oa eo e4 o� 9'• cF4P4 4 Sf 73 �PSO o �i North No Scale Eostbtuff Universit Ison Av Ford Road San Joe uin Hills goc�c East Coast Hwy FIGURE Katz, Okifsu k Associates Vieih 7 Map 1 Troffic & Highway Engineers II� 1 i . . s Y 10 • � cwv :.na..ios,•rrar. � Avtsaw voavr. �L, na-.45wings i . FIGURE ®Katz, okitsu k Associates Sheraton Commercial Center (Staples) Traffic & Highway Engineers Site Plan � M TRIP GENERATION Project related traffic is defined as trips on the study area street system which will begin or end at the project site, as a result of the development of the proposed project. All or part of these trips will result in traffic increases on the streets where they occur. Project related traffic is a function of the extent and type of land use proposed for the site. This information is used to establish trip generation for the site. Trip generation characteristics for typically occurring land uses are normally based on rates published in Trio Generation, a report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) . This manual indicates the probable traffic generation rates for various land uses based upon studies of existing developments in comparable settings. The City of Newport Beach has published a list of generation rates for use in traffic studies within, the City. These rates are slightly different than the ITE rates, and are based in part upon studies of existing developments in Newport Beach. The City list includes a rate appropriate for use in this traffic study. Table 2 summarizes the traffic generation rates utilized for the project. The table also shows the forecasted traffic volume on weekdays, including the peak hour and the peak two-and-one-half- hours for the project. 6 �6 Table 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES General Retail Generation Traffic Land Use Rate Volume Daily Traffic 45 1215 AM Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 1.2 32 Outbound 1.0 27 PM Peak 2 .5 Hours Inbound 3 . 8 103 Outbound 4. 0 108 AM Peak Hour Inbound 0. 6 16 Outbound 0.5 14 PM Peak Hour Inbound 1.9 51 Outbound 2 . 0 54 Note: All generation rates are trips per 1000 sf of building area. Traffic volume is based upon 27, 000 sf development. 7 a TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes which will be utilized by project traffic. The potential interaction between the proposed land use .and surrounding residential areas, employment oppor- tunities, services, and regional access routes are considered to identify the routes where the project traffic will distribute. The anticipated trip distribution characteristics for project inbound traffic is presented on Figure 3 . The distribution of traffic on approaches to the site is in direct proportion to existing traffic volumes on MacArthur Boulevard and on Birch Street.. This traffic is distributed to logical and direct approach routes at intersections remote from the site. The outbound distribution is shown on Figure 4 . The outbound traffic distribution is slightly different than the inbound distribution due to turn restrictions, access restrictions, and other factors. The most significant influence is from turn restrictions on MacArthur Boulevard at Corinthian Way. Left turns are currently prohibited from Corinthian Way onto MacArthur Boulevard. The volume of project related traffic on streets in the study area is determined by considering the traffic generation for the proposed development and the distribution pattern. Figure 5 indicates forecasts of additional vehicular traffic on roadways in the study area for the peak weekday morning and evening 2 1/2 hour study periods. Figure 6 indicates project related traffic for the morning and evening peak one-hour period. 8 I$ s John Wayne '{C Airport Orange County Pao 1 ax Cod ,00 PROJECT p�m SITE jk 1 tsc a; CWay,, , on Y F °aye r ek '0 N u 41. t o/sf 73North y WSJ No Scale 44/ �eS 00 t N N x y laR 5`biUff Universit t L Bison Av t_ 3 S'i Ford Rood zx 3% M o � Lez c � e end k Son Joaquin Hills 3Y. + 00% = Trip Distribution ~ 1: 3% J East Coast Hw �- p7 Proposed Project FIGURE %, IKatz, Okifsu & Associates Inbound 3 Traffic & Highway Engineers Trip Distribution iy John Wayne r Airport Orange County m o� P f r Ca °�ts PROJECT SITE corlydhlon Way.. i0ox J J Q! ox 4°F six- zt ,. 11 1 aY0'4 fu. M er� P°o s�of S' North 73 No Soele 0 0� slbluff ! Universit t Ison Av hk o f Ford Road k H� Legend Son Joaquin Hills �-00% = Trip Distribution i3 J East Coast Hw p^/� Proposed Project FIGURE Katz, OkW & kBoolates Outbound 4Traffic & Highway Engineers Trip Distribution r r John Wayne e o Airport 00,B Orange County Q� a 1is ,FdF PROJECT SITE f 4/1J Corinthian wey, fJ`,. e'ch ro� ro J � b ry! OoynsJa�401 z J M1 73 ary ( North No Scale l OO J N Y t J 1 stbloff ! Universit t y\'t 2 4 !son AV ✓y� r o� Ford Road e end n ti ti00/00 AM/PM Traffic Volumes a <G<aN o° for 2 1/2 Hours / So /y n Jooquln Ills t � t `\r N N East Coast Hw N N` Project FIGURE R7 Katz, Old(su k Associates Peak 2 112 Hour 5 Traffic do Highway Engineers Traffic Volumes zl r John Wayne Q p Airport o`m' Orange County >4 � P n pp 113 ��tp f r- CO, J°o PROJECT SITE {Cod z/7nthlan Way,,, Rf 6� ��C/� ♦\w \tih ac "°\p ,v � Sf�sP/ � ♦\yak." Q. ♦ 73 M1\O s North No Scale ♦\ti ey, 0 0� 1 w Stbluff ! Universit l t 5 N C\ 0 Na ry \-0 t son v l Ford Road %.a o/2 f t Legend `00/00 = AM/PM Traffic Volumes for One-Hour ry Son Joa � qu n Hills 0/2 t eta oo, J' 0/2 f East Coast Hw 11! rt 0 Project FIGURE l Katz, 4kitsu k ,associates Peak One Hour 6 Traffic & Highway Engineers Traffic Volumes TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The locations where the project may cause a potential traffic impact are identified by determining the volume of traffic increase attributed to the project on roadways and intersections in the vicinity. If the proposed project will cause a 1$ increase in the peak two-and-one-half hour traffic volume on any approach to an intersection where traffic conditions are considered significant, then that intersection must be studied in depth to identify any traffic impact or any need for mitigation. Traffic Phasing Ordinance For the traffic phasing ordinance, the one percent test above is based upon predictions of near-term future traffic levels at the appropriate intersections. These forecasts include considerations for existing traffic volumes, annual regional traffic growth, traffic diverted onto committed new highway facilities, and traffic expected from committed development projects which have not been fully constructed or occupied. The City of Newport Beach maintains a list showing existing traffic volumes at all significant intersections in the -City. The City also maintains a list indicating all projects which have been approved in the City, but not fully constructed, and traffic volumes associated with all of these projects. A list of traffic growth factors for all significant arterial streets in the City is also published. These were furnished to Katz, Okitsu & Associates for this study. The one-percent test was applied to the following intersections, in consultation with the City regarding the potential area of impact for the project. The intersections studied are: MacArthur Boulevard at Birch Street AM and PM Campus Drive AM and PM Newport P1 Drive/ Von Karman Avenue AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard AM and PM Bison Avenue AM and PM Ford Road AM and PM San Joaquin Hills AM and PM San Miguel Drive AM and PM East Coast Hwy AM and PM Birch Street at Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Bristol Street (S) AM and PM 13 y3 f Jamboree Boulevard at Bitch Street AM and PM Campus Drive AM and PM Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Bristol Street (S) AM and PM Eastbluff/University AM and PM Bison Avenue AM and PM Eastbluff/Ford Rd AM and PM 'San Joaquin Hills AM and PM Campus Drive at Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Campus Dr/Irvine Av at Bristol Street (S) AM and PM Traffic conditions for these intersections were forecast for three years into the future, one year after the anticipated opening of the project. The committed' future traffic volumes for each intersection were compared with the forecasted level of traffic associated with the project from Figure 5. The proposed project would not have a significant traffic impact at locations where the ratio of project traffic to forecasted future traffic is less than one-percent. If this ratio is above one-percent, there is a potential for traffic impact and further analysis will be necessary. Table 3 summarizes the one-percent forecasts for each of the intersections. The proposed project will have a it impact at a limited number of study area locations during the AM peak period or the PM peak period. Completed forms for full evaluation of the one percent test at all locations appear in the report appendix. 14 ;-q Table 3 ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1% of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant MacArthur/Birch (AM) Northbound 16 0 No Southbound 29 10 No Eastbound 11 13 Yes Westbound 7 5 No MacArthur/Birch (PM) Northbound 27 0 No Southbound 23 35 Yes Eastbound 16 51 Yes Westbound 20 13 Yes MacArthur/Campus (AM) Northbound 19 8 No Southbound 37 8 No Eastbound 26 0 No Westbound 8 2 No MacArthur/Campus (PM) Northbound 34 31 No Southbound 33 30 No Eastbound 20 0 No Westbound 31 5 No Jamboree/Birch (AM) Northbound 34 1 No Southbound 59 1 No Eastbound 4 3 No Westbound 0 0 No Jamboree/Birch (PM) Northbound 48 2 No Southbound 40 3 No Eastbound 14 11 No Westbound 0 0 No 15 a5 Table 3 (Con't) ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance It of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ticant Jamboree/Campus (AM) Northbound 29 2 No Southbound 57 2 No Eastbound 9 0 No Westbound 21 1 No Jamboree/Campus (PM) Northbound 54 8 No Southbound 44 5 No Eastbound 18 0 No Westbound 16 3 No MacArthur/Jamboree (AM) Northbound 34 7 No Southbound 20 10 No Eastbound 49 5 No Westbound 26 0 No MacArthur/Jamboree (PM) Northbound 25 23 No Southbound 37 40 Yes Eastbound 33 15 No Westbound 53 0 No MacArthur/Newport P1 Dr/Von Karman (AM) Northbound 28 12 No Southbound 13 10 No Eastbound 5 0 No Westbound 5 0 No MacArthur/Newport P1 Dr/Von Karman (PM) Northbound 20 38 Yes Southbound 17 40 Yes Eastbound 12 0 No Westbound 13 0 No 16 �v Table 3 (Con't) ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1% of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant Jamboree/Bristol N (AM) Northbound 93 5 No Southbound 29 4 No Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 0 0 No Jamboree/Bristol N (PM) Northbound 85 15 No Southbound 52 16 No Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 0 0 No Jamboree/Bristol S (AM) Northbound 58 5 No Southbound is 4 No Eastbound 68 0 No Westbound 0 0 No Jamboree/Bristol S (PM) Northbound 59 15 No Southbound 27 16 No Eastbound 70 0 No Westbound 0 0 No Birch/Bristol N (AM) Northbound 24 3 No Southbound 8 2 No Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 32 0 No Birch/Bristol N (PM) Northbound 13 8 No Southbound 33 9 No Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 63 0 No 17 Z� Table 3 (Con't) ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1$ of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ii6ant Birch/Bristol S (AM) Northbound 5 0 No Southbound 7 0 No Eastbound 52 3 No Westbound 0 0 No Birch/Bristol S (PM) Northbound 6 0 No Southbound 14 0 No Eastbound 45 8 No Westbound 0 0 No Bristol N/Campus (AM) Northbound 52 3 No Southbound 12 2 No Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 31 2 No Bristol N/Campus (PM) Northbound 36 8 No Southbound As 9 No Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 79 9 No Bristol/Campus-Irvine (AM) Northbound 45 3 No Southbound 12 2 No Eastbound 73 3 No Westbound 0 0 No Bristol/Campus-Irvine (PM) Northbound 33 8 No Southbound 33 9 No .Eastbound 59 8 No Westbound 0 0 No 18 20 Table 3 (Con't) ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1% of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant MacArthur/Bison (AM) Northbound 56 4 No Southbound 56 3 No Eastbound 8 0 No Westbound 1 0 No MacArthur/Bison (PM) Northbound 46 12 No Southbound 47 13 No Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 11 0 No MacArthur/Ford (AM) Northbound 49 3 No Southbound 57 4 No Eastbound 5 0 No Westbound 25 1 No MacArthur/Ford (PM) Northbound 48 11 No Southbound 69 12 No Eastbound 7 0 No Westbound 12 2 No MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills (AM) Northbound 33 2 No Southbound 49 3 No Eastbound 6 1 No Westbound 18 1 No MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills (PM) Northbound 30 5 No Southbound 54 10 No Eastbound 23 3 No Westbound 12 2 No 19 Table 3 (Con't) ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1$ of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Vo ume ficant MacArthur/San Miguel (AM) Northbound 33 1 No Southbound 28 2 No Eastbound 6 1 No Westbound 8 0 No MacArthur/San Miguel (PM) Northbound 20 2 No Southbound 36 5 No Eastbound 26 3 No Westbound 9 0 No Irvine/Mesa (AM) Northbound 40 1 No Southbound 14 2 No Eastbound 5 1 No Westbound 2 0 No Irvine/Mesa (PM) Northbound 25 4 No Southbound 45 8 No Eastbound 5 4 No Westbound 5 0 No Jamboree/Eastbluff-University (AM) Northbound 51 5 No Southbound 45 4 No Eastbound 12 0 No Westbound 13 0 No Jamboree/Eastbluff-University (PM) Northbound 60 16 No Southbound 45 15 No Eastbound 7 0 No Westbound 14 0 No i 20 30 Table 3 (Con't) ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1% of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant Jamboree/Bison (AM) Northbound 52 4 No Southbound 44 5 No Eastbound 4 0 No Westbound 6 1 No Jamboree/Bison (PM) Northbound 50 13 No Southbound 48 16 No Eastbound 2 0 No Westbound 7 2 No Jamboree/Eastbluff-Ford (AM) Northbound 54 3 No Southbound 44 4 No Eastbound 11 1 No Westbound 9 0 No Jamboree/Eastbluff-Ford (PM) Northbound 67 11 No Southbound 60 13 No Eastbound 11 3 No Westbound 6 0 No MacArthur/East Coast Hwy (AM) Northbound 0 0 No Southbound 15 1 No Eastbound 26 0 No Westbound 55 1 No MacArthur/East Coast Hwy (PM) Northbound 0 0 No Southbound 28 2 No Eastbound 45 0 No Westbound 40 2 No 21 3� Table 3 (Conft) ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1t of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume fican Jamboree/San Joaquin Hills (AM) Northbound 49 1 No Southbound 55 3 No Eastbound 9 0 No Westbound 10 2 No Jamboree/San Joaquin Hills (-PM) Northbound 51 4 No Southbound 69 10 No Eastbound 8 0 No Westbound 25 6 No Notes: Project impact may be significant if project volume is greater than It of peak hour volume. 4 22 3v INTERSECTION ANALYSES Evaluations of traffic conditions at intersections in Newport Beach are made using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of traffic analysis. The ICU analysis measures the ratio between traffic volume and intersection traffic capacity for a given intersection geometry. This essentially indicates of how close the intersection will be to its traffic-carrying capacity. The ICU allows for the determination of the operating Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection. Level of Service is a report card scale evaluating traffic performance. Table 5 presents a brief definition of each Level of Service and shows the relationship between ICU and Level of Service. Table 5 TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of ICU Level of Service Service Rance Description A 0. 00-0. 60 Excellent, Light Traffic B 0. 60-0.70 Good, Light to Moderate Traffic C 0. 70-0.80 Moderate Traffic, Insignificant Delay D 0. 80-0. 90 Heavy Traffic with Significant Delay E 0.90-1. 00 Severe Congestion and Delay F 1.0 and Up Failed, Traffic Cannot Be Handled Level of Service D is the customary maximum allowable "standard" Level of Service during peak hours at intersections. The City of Newport Beach has adopted this standard. Mitigation measures are considered or required for traffic at poorer levels. Mitigation is required from a development, when its traffic will cause a 0.01 increase in an ICU from below 0.90 to above 0.90. A detailed Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis must be performed for all of the locations and time periods where traffic increases of 1% or more are forecasted on any intersection approach. This analysis is performed to determine if there will be a significant Level of Service condition and a traffic impact as defined above. Intersection traffic volumes were forecasted in the AM and PM peak hours for ICU studies in the same manner as the two-and-one-half hour forecast for the one percent analysis. Existing traffic volumes are adjusted for annul growth, and traffic volumes 33 associated with approved developments and the proposed project are combined into the forecasts. The City furnishes work sheets for this purpose. Table 5 indicates the existing ICU as well as the projected future ICU with and without the proposed project. Table 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Traffic Phasing Ordinance Future Future without with Intersection (Time) Existing Proiect Prolect MacArthur Blvd at: Birch (AM) 0.37 0.42 0.42 Birch (PM) 0.58 0. 61 10. 61 Jamboree (PM) 0.832 1. 010 1.015 Newport Place Dr/ Von Barman (PM) 0.51 0. 54 0.54 The project will not increase any ICU from below 0.90 to above 0.90. Increases will occur at locations substantially below 0.90. There will be a slight increase of 0.005 at MacArthur Blvd and Jamboree Blvd, PM only, but this intersection is forecasted at 0.90 above without project traffic. This amount of increase does not constitute a traffic impact. 24 3q MITIGATION Mitigation measures will not be required to remedy project related traffic at any of the locations studied under the guidelines of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. When the City's General Plan was amended to allow for retail commercial uses on the site, the accompanying traffic study determined that mitigation would be required if the development was found to have an outbound peak hour traffic generation of 109 trips or more. The proposed project will have an outbound pm peak hour generation of 54 trips, so mitigation will not be required according to the previously completed General Plan Amendment. SITE ANALYSIS The site plan for the proposed development was inspected for compliance with accepted design procedures and guidelines. The city will conduct a complete review of the site plan in conjunction with this application. SUMMARY A retail commercial development is being proposed on the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will generate 1215 new vehicle trips per day, including 30 trips in the morning peak hour and 105 trips in the evening peak hour. These trips will result in traffic increases on streets in the project vicinity. An analysis of this proposed development was performed consistent with the procedures and guidelines of the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The analysis determined that the proposed project will result in a significant (1%) traffic increase upon several arterial intersections in the vicinity of the site, as follows: MacArthur Blvd at Birch Street (AM and PM) MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd (PM only) MacArthur Blvd at Newport Place Dr/ Von Karman (PM only) Intersection Capacity Utilization studies were conducted for each of the intersections and time frames indicated above. The proposed project was not found to raise the ICU for any location from below 0.90 to above 0.90. The project will not cause measurable increases in ICU at any locations where near-term future conditions are expected to be deficient according to past City studies. 25 35 Appendices: A. Peak 2 1/2 Hour 1t Work sheets B. Near-term ICU Work sheets 36 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pring 94 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lit of Projected Project Direction Peek 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Northbound 1372 28 215 1615 16 0 Southbound 2194 44 634 2872 29 j 10 Eastbound 1122 0 3 1125 11 13 Westbound 657 0 6 663 7 5 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ® Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples OFFICE Supply Store FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR AL BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Winter/Spring 94 PM Peak 21% Hour Approved FApp.r.oacl, Existing Regional Projects Projected 1S"13 t tio Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peour Volume Volume Volume Volume eNorthbound 1937 39 681 2657 Isouthbound 2006 40 249 2295 Eastbound 1550 0 13 1563 16 51 Westbound 2010 0 1 2011 20 13 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ® Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE• 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I 3 I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AverageWinter/Sp—F-5—g—MRTM _ Peek 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak A Hour Peak 2h,Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1664 33 217 1914 19 j 8— out oun 3088 62 578 f 3728 1 37 j 8 Eastbound 2563 0 76 2639 26 i 0 Westbound 829 0 1 830 8 2 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required.. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I q0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 94 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2q Hour Peak 29 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2670 54 690 3414 34 31 Southbound 2980 60 263 3303 33 30 Eastbound 1952 1 0 6 1958 20 0 IL Westbound 3098 0 21 3119 31 5 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I 9 � 1 M 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection D Ei R H STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Verage rater pr ng 19 LT Am Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction, Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 2601 52 712 3365 34 j 1 Southbound 3988, 80 T879 5947 59 i 1 Eastbound 353 0 2 355 4 3 Westbound 20 0 0 20 0 0 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE• 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store BIZ. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes 'aUsei on Verage inter pring 199L7pM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peek 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hoc Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 3156 63 1600 4819 48 2 South bound 3174 64 713 3951 40 3 Eastbound 1395 0 29 1424 14 11 Westbound 37 0 0 37 0 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. -- DATE: 1777/95 PROJECT: 43 0 w 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng 93 AM Peek 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peek 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4213 44 674 2931 29 2 Southbound 3989 80 1597 5666 57 2 Eastbound 596 0 302 898 9 0 ( Westbound 1787 0 301 2088 21 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 2.� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store qq 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 93 pM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3676 74 1623 5373 54 8 Southbound 3637 73 659 4369 44 i 5 Eastbound 1736 0 92 1828 18 i 0 L Westbound 1484 0 110 1594 16 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 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. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store , )/ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Verage nter Rmx R B ULEVARD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on pr ng 19 94)AM Peek 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% oir Projected Project Direction Peek 2y Hour Growth Peek 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volme Northbound 2984 60 405 3449 34 7 South bound 978 20 976 1974 20 10 Eastbound 3673 74 1108 4855 49 5 Westbound ' 1791 36 748 2575 26 '• 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store �6 rnou T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection E ROAD MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter Spring 19,94 PM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 21g Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 1954 39 533 2526 25 22' Southbound 3117 63 563 3743 37 40 Eastbound 2340 47 943 3330 33 15 7 Westbound 4304 — 87 871 5262 53 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Qx Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store q 7 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/NEWPORT PLACE-VON KARMAN (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1994_ Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2's Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2556 51 205 2812 28 ' 12 Southbound 19 383 1344 13 j 10 Eastbound 492 0 7 499 5 0 Mestbound 513 0 4 517 5 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. -DATE• 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store Gf(a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/NEWPORT PLACE—VON KARMAN (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average In er pr ng _ pM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak try Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Northbound 1607 32 347 1986 20 I 38 South bound 1517 30 155 1702 17 40 Eastbound 1128 0 30 1158 12 i 0 Westbound 1324 0 1 1325 13 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected © Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store �� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection VMT (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage lnter , pring 4 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 8198 165 902 9265 93 5 Southbound 1940 39 918 2897 29 i 4 Eastbound' _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 ' Westbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to 'be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store /� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRI OL STREET NORTH JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring1994 PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7079 142 1232 8453 85 15 Southbound 4240 85 899 5224 52 16 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 f Westbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. -- DATE• 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 5� r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection SRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AvMge Winter/Spring 19 93 AM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project ! Direction Peak. 2k Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume �! Northbound 4961 100 777 5838 58 5 southbound 951 19 '847 1817 18 4 Eastbound 5402 0 1372 6774 68 0 Westbound i ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. - - DATE• 3/27/95 PROJECT: staples Office Supply Store G� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pring 19 93 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved i Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour I Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour 4olume Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4671 94 1126 5891 59 15 i� Southbound 1985 40 669 2694 27 16 Eastbound 5952 0 1054 7006 70 0 !� r Westbound ' 9 © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: S���esY�e S�p�O/y S{aE 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes ash on Verage In er pr ng 94 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 2h Hour Peak 2'y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2386 0 38 2424' 24 1 3 Southbound 684 0 83 767 8 2 Eastbound —0— 0. 0 0 0 0 Westbound 2725 0 448 3173 32 0 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less ,than 1% of Projected' Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. GATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: 5 /es D�'ce -Sele� S�o�c a � 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/BIRCH STREET (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring M4 pM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 216 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1244 0 11 1255 13 8 South bound 3171 0 79 3250 33 9 i Eastbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 i 0 ' Westbound 5278 0 998 6276 63 0 o Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [� Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store ly I- - — End 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour, Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume volume yply me Northbound 473 0 20 493 5 0 Southbound 578 0 75 653 7 0 f Eastbound 4336 0 867 5203 52 3 Westbound —0— 0 0 0 0 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to ,be less than 1% of Projected, Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% ,of Projected, ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 5 b 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter prtng 19 93 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project 1 Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21s Hour j Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 634 0 0 634 6 0 Southbound 1336 0 46 1382 14 0 Eastbound 3982 0 479 4461 .1 45 8 Westbound ' —0— 0 0 0 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: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store `J7 rn n.. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes a s e on verage nter `pr ng 194 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5145 0 40 5185 52 3' Sou thbound 1157 0 30 1187 12 2 Eastbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 Mestbound 2616 0 456 3072 31 ' 2 MR Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than '1% of Projected El Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 Q PROJECT: S�af�Cs W-6ce S4PP� Are- by 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring b PM Peak 2+y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3571 0 0 3571 36 8 South bound 4617 0 140 4757 48 9 Eastbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 6855 0 1031 7886 79 ' 9 a 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� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysi's Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pF15-g-119TT-AM_ Peak 2k Hour Approved pApproach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 3952 79 419 44-50 45 3 991 20 190 1,201 12 2 Eastbound 6645 0 669 7314 73 i 3 Westbound 0 p p 0 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume D Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Sfq�le5 4A:k4 supp y sion` III - 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring U)pM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2+s Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peek 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3002 60 251 3313 33 8 southbound 2823 57 378 3258 33 9 Eastbound 5600 0 289 5889 59 8 i Westbound _p_ 0 0 0 0 ' 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2-, 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. DATE: a/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based, on Average n er pr ng T9TDAM Peak 24.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 Your Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5276 106 188 5570 56 i 4 Southbound ! 4828 97 714 5639 56 j 3 Eastbound 740 0 59 799 8 0 i I f Westbound _0_ 0 82 82 1 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume El Peak Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 �Z PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93) M Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Projeet Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4029 81 536 4646 46 ( 12 Southbound 4307 87 277 4671 47 13 Eastbound 963 0 177 1140 11 0 Westbound —0— 0 0 0 0 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection, MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average n er pr ng _ 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 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4255 86 551 4892 49 3 South bound 4913 1 99 666 5678 1 57 j 4 Eastbound 0 20 500 5 0 ( Westbound 2350 0 1 152 2502 25 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected (] Peak 2J1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spir-i-ng—TOT7pM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2)g Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 4091 82 648 4821 48 11 t Southbound 6052 122 729 6903 69 12 t Eastbound 663 0 20 683 7 i 0 i Westbound 1189 0 34 1223 12 0 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 6/ PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng 93 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Projeet Direction Peek 2$ Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour 'Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2928 59 334 3321 33 2 I southbound 3785 76 990 4851 49 3 Eastbound 516, 0 102 618 6 1 Nestbound 1647 0 170 1817 18 b O 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 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (,I.C.U,) Analysis is required. DATE• 3/27/95 �� PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 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 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2Ji Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume Northbound 2558 51 393 3002 30 5 Southbound 4623 93 710 5426 54 10 Eastbound 1825 0 469 2294 23 I Westbound 1121 0 71 11 ® 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; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/SAN MIGUEL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/spring 199L4_ AM Peek 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peek 2h Hour Peek A Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Mum Volume Northbound 3053 61 205 3319 33 f 1 Southbound 2200 44 605 2849 28 2 I Eastbound 505 0 106 611 6 1 Hestbound 624 0 194 818 8 ! 0 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than l% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD SAN MIGUEL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Vol-u-m—es-B-a-s-e-d on verage inter pring 94 PM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 1% of Pr Protected Protect Hour Peek 2e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 1830 37 166 2033 I 20 2 Southbound 3107 62 475 3644 36 5 Eastbound 2143 0 438 2581 26 3 Westbound 797 0 102 899 g 0 O 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 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE AV/MESA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93) AM Peak, 2h 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 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3498 70 442 4010 40 1 I South bound 1201 24 199 1 1424 1 14 2 Eastbound 480 0 20 Soo 5 1 Westbound 193 0 0 i93 2 ? 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. -- DATE 3/27/95 �0 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store i% Traffic Volume Analy sis Intersection IRVINE AV/MESA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1993 M Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2182 44 287 2513 25 4 Southbound 4010 1 81 408 4499 1 45 8 Eastbound 476 0 0 476 5 i 4 Westbound 470 0 0 470 5 0 o Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE• 3/27/95 �� PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD EASTBLUFF DR N—UNIVERSITY DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring E- AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 4428 89 570 5087 51 5 southbound 3290 66 1130 4486 45 4 Eastbound 1045 0 126 1171 12 p Westbound 1189 0 84 1273 13 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than l% of Projected Peak 2h 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• 3/27/95 �Z PROJECT: staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF DR—UNIVERSITY DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93_) pM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2;1 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4757 96 1113 5966 60 16 Southbound 5369 108 854 1 6331 63 15 Eastbound 676 0 26 702 7 i 0 i Westbound 1219 0 160 1379 14 0 MRProject 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 a Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 -73 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng 94 AM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4073 82 1033 '5188 52 4 Southbound 3063 62 1260 4385 44 i 5 Eastbound 356 0 48 404 4 0 Westbound 533 0 52 585 6 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I 7q 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1994) PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3696 74 1236 5006 50 i 13 southbound 3573 72 1117 4762 48 16 Eastbound 216 0 26 242 2 i 0 Westbound 583 0 160 743 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 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store �y FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/FORD-EASTBLUFF DR (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Verage ]nter pring 993TAM Peak 2h,Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 4161 84 1144 5389 54 I 3 southbound 3056 • 61 1254 4371 44 4 Eastbound 937 0 162 1099 , 11 1 Westbound 0 162 850 9 0 Q 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 (I.C.U. ) Analysis. is required. PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store DATE: 3/27/95 /6 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd Ford Rd Eastbluff Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pr ng 19 93)PM Peak 21% Hour Approved 7Apach Existing Regtonat Protects Projected IX of Protected Protect tion Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 9s Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4932 99 1640 6671 67 11 i i Southbound 4614 93 1302 6009 60 13 Eastbound 1097 0 42 1139 11 3 Westbound 449 0 166 615 6 0 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE• 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples OfficeSupply Store � II 1% Traffic Volume Analysi's Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage WinWr7spring 93 AM --------------------------- Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected h of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2§ Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Northbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 i 0 Southbodnd 1226 25 230 1481 15 1 Eastbound 2437 49 112 2598 26 ; 0 Westbound, 4788 96 616 5500 55 ! 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less 0 Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume than 1% of Projected Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C'.U.) Analysis is required. DATE• 3/27/95 �� PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2JI Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 2342 1 47 423 2812 2& 2 Eastbound 4111 83 311 4505 45 0 ' Westbound 3634 73 276 3983 40 2 -- Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 7� DATE• 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store 1% Traffi'c Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 94 AM Peak 2)i Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Protected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3706 74 1088 4868 49 1 South bound 4063 82 1400 5545 55 3 Eastbound 909 0 32 941 g p Westbound 861 0 1081 969 10 2 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2's Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I �� 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Inter pring 9 pM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2's Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3859 78 1200 5137 51 4 Southbound 5489 110 1329 6928 69 10 Eastbound 484 0 304 788 8 0 westbound 2443 0 89 2532 25 6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected M Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Q 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: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I B. Near-term ICU Worksheets KA429SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD A BIRCH 4295 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 AN ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI 1Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PX MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapecityl 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-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I NL I 160D 1 1 59 1 0.04 1 1 1 10 1 0.04* 1 0 10.04*1 I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I 1 NT I 4WD 1 1 482 1 0.10 * 10 1 99 1 0.12 1 0 10.12 1 i------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------I 1 MR I N.S. 1 1 831 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I i SL 1 1600 1 1 us I o.09 * 3 1 0 1 0.09 1 5 10.10 1 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -1 I ST 1 1 599 1 12 1 312 1 0.19*1 0 10.19*1 I--------) 6400 ------------------) 0.14 -----------------------------------------------I I SR 1 1 299 1 6 1 6 l 1 0 1 1 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 I EL I 1 101 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 I I --- .) --------------------- -)-------------------------------------------------------I 1 ET 4B00 1 1 365 0.12 * 7 1 0 1 0.12* 1 3 10.12*1 l. .... .) ...................... .)-------------------------------------------------------I I ER 1 1 92 1 2 1 0 11 0 1 1 I -------------------------------------------------------------- ..._-..__. ------------ -I i WL 1 16001 1 361 0.021 1 1 1 1 0.02 1 2 10.02 1 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I WT 1 3200 1 1 201 1 0.06 * 4 1 2 1 0.06* 1 0 10.061 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .-I 1 WR I M.S. 1 1 51 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTING 1 0.37 1 1 1_ __________________________________________________________________________ 1 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.42 I I 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ -I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.421 ............................................................................................. IXl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems iMrove ent 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: Staples Office Supply Store 3/27/95 'PROJECT FORM 11 MA4295AN �3 KA429SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: HACARTHUR BOULEVARD i BIRCH 42" EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE'DAILT TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTiNGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC OHM ITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVotume I V/C I I (CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Proje6tl I Ratio I I I i I I I I I Volume I I I . . .. ... ....... .... . _.. ,.. .3.i.....O--1 0.11* .i 0 10.11* ..._ . 1 I NL 1 1600 1 1 165 1 Goo I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -i I NT 1, 4WD 1 1 699 1 0.15 1 14 1 340 1 0.22 1 '0 10.22 1 1. ................................................ ..... ....... .. ......... .. .. .I 1N_R. I....................................................H.S. 2. . ..I...........!....�_�..... .1 I -- � 03S 1003 1 .-------------- ------------- -I-- ------------------------- = -------- : ,1 I ST I 1 595 1 12 1 123 1 0.14* 1 0 10.1,4*I I--------) 6400 ..................) 0.12 +_..__.................._...._..-------........1 SR I 1 185 I 4 1 2 I i 0 I I i...........................................................................................i EL 1 1 303 1 6 I 5 1 1 4 1 1 I --- -)..........................).......................................................I ET _).. 4BOO.I.._.....1. 317 )_. 0.14 `.....6 1- 2 1 0.14* 1- 3 10.15*1 1. .._. ..... .............. ............ I _ ER . I 1 55 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 . ....................................................................................... .I WL 1 '16001 1 911 0.061 2 1 0 1 0.06 1 2 10.061 . ....................................................................................... .I WT 1 3200 1 1 704 1 0.22 • 14 1 1 1 0.22* 1 0 10.22*1 . ........................ .............................................................. .I I. ......................... .............. ................ ........................... .I 1EXISTING 1 0.58 1 I I. .......................................................................... (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.61 1 I 1. ....................................................................................... . 1EXiSTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.61 1 ............................................................................................ ID Projected + project traffic I.C.U. mitt 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/systeer improvement mitt be less than or equal to 0.9D Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will I* less then I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT Staples Office Supply Store 3 27 95 FORM 11 KA429SPH JA4275PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD(E-W) & MACARTHUR BOULEVARD(N-S) 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC MINTER/SPRING 1994 PM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMoverontl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C I I [CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I ML 1 1600 1 1 327 1 0.20 * 7 1 20 1 0.22* 1 0 10.22*1 1- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I NT 1 1 393 1 8 1 207 1 0.18 1 1110.18 1 I--------) 4WD ------------------) 0.12 -----------------------------------............I 1 MR I 1 190 I 4 I 41 I I 0 1 1 I. ....................................................................................... .I 1 SL 1 . 1600 1 1 219 1 0.14 I 4 1 15 1 0.15 1 0 10.15 1 I- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 970 1 0.20 * 19 1 150 1 0.24* 1 12 10 24*1 1- ----------------- - ._ .--------------------------------------------------------------:.. .I I SR I N.S. 1 1 569 1 1 11 1 68 1 1 8 1 1 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I EL 1 3200 1 1 277 1 0.09 * 6 1 150 1 0.14* 1 8 10.14*1 1-.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I ET 1 4800 1 1 713 1 0.15 1 14 1 318 1 0.22 1 0 10.22 1 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I i ER I N.S. 1 1 351 1 1 1 5 1 1 01 1 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I WL 1 3200 1 1 553 1 0.17 1 11 1 53 ( 0.19 1 0 10.19 1 I ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------I 1 WT 1 4800 1 1 162E 1 0.34 * 33 1 337 1 0.42* 1 0 10.42*1 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_-I I WR I M.S. 1 1 205 1 1 4 1 45 1 1 01 1 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I 1EXISTING 1 0.83 1 1 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. [ 1 .01 0 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ -I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 11 .0151 ............................................................................................. 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90 [B1 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 will be Less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: * Note: Future + Proj is .005 greater than Future w/o Project. PROJECT StapleS Office Supply.Store 3/27/95 FORM )I JA427SPH U� MA4285PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD i NEWPORT PL/VON KOMAN 4285 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING .5.. .. ..................................................... ....................... ....... .: . I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMNITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI 1Movementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I We I GROWTH i PROJECT I WC Ratio lVolune I We I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio l Volune I Voluae lw/Y Praojjectl I Ratio .l 11II1 • - - - --NL 16001 6I0.04 * 120.04* 1010.04*II1 . .. ...! . . ........1.... . ... ..... ..1:.... ._1. ••�--..-.NT 1 4600 I 147 . 9 1 173 I 0.14 19 10.14 1. ........................... . ................................................... •• . . .. -MR116001 1151 007121 010.07 010.07. _ _.. ._. . _.......I.... . •• . . ..... . .... •• .i... .. .5L 1600 i 420.0311 0 1 0.03 010.03. . ...I.__ ........1._.. _1,_, . •-- ..1 •................................ 4800 l 1 ST I l 1 558 1 0.12 • 11 ( 76 1 0.13* 1 20 10.14*1 l..................1........1600 i..... .i...o.05 1. -- 2.I-----•z-i•--0.05 ..i...o...0.05•I I---------•---•.................................•---........................................l I EL 1 16001 1 971 o.D61 2 1 B 1 0.07 1 0 10.07 I 1-------••-----•-------------------------•-•-------•---..--..--•-------------------------•--I I ET 1 3200 1 1 269 1 O.Oa • 5 1 2 1 0.09* 1 0 10.09*1 ...........................................................................................I ER 1 1600 1 1 242 1 0.1s 1 5 1 6 1 0.16 1 0 ,10.16 1 I ........................................................................................ I WL- -1._,1600 1 1 431 . _.._.... ... .1 0 •• .27.f.....9.1.._...0 1 0.27* 1 0 10.27*1 •--------------------- ...... I WT 1 32001 1 2121 0,071 41 1 1 0.07 1 0 10.071 I--------------------------------------------------------------------•-- ----•----- I WR 1 1600 1 1 30.1 -.O.02.1-. 1 1 0 1 0.02 1 0 10.02 1 I------------------------------ .--..-.-..-.-------------•- -----1 1EXISTING 1 0.51 1 I...................................................................... 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.54 1 I 1...........................................................................................1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL ...........G.R.O..W...+..P.R.O..JE.C.T. I.C.U. ... .............................1.0:...5.4...I IxI Projected + Project traffic I.C.U. will be less then or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/system bprovement Will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project foprovements WILL to less then I.C.U. without project Deseription of system foprovammt:••--------------.------•.. .......•.•............. ••..• PROJECT Staples Office Supply Store MA4285PM FORM IT �6 • ATTACHMM 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F I L F APR 17 M I.W Newport ttoutevard-P.O. Box 1768 GARY L GROMPE, county ClEsfl� Newport Ikach,CA 9209-17Gi1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION From: City of Newport Beach To: Office of Planning and Research Planning Department ❑ 1400'[cnth coSUt Room 121 33tX1 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Boz 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange XX Public Services Division Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerla P.O.Box 838 Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period April 16 - May 7, 1992 Name of Project: Harbor Pacific Plaza, General Plan Amendment 90-3(A)/ Amendment No. 745/Resubdivision No. 980/TPO No. 78 Project Location: 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Amendment, Resubdivision, Project Desch Lion and Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study to resubdivide a single parcel P uselt dGeneralaCommercialnwithea designation of and chnge the maximum41,750 square feet of retail development. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3pertainingto procedures and guidelinestoimplement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee bps evaluated the proposed projeet'and determined that the propoWdilmOut- sed project would not have a significant effect on the ttachi d. �e Initial Study may include A copy of the initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding' mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential project. impacts. 'Phis document will be considered by the decision-makcr(s) prior to final action on the ro ro ect. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached relating to the proposed project may be evadable for public review. If you Additional plans,studies and/or exlu'bits would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. if you wish to appeal the appropriateness Or adequacy of this document,yourcommentsshoiild 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 areS'loficant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. 'Mete 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 documeaL If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned. r� t� 1Qg9 Date Aoril John H. Douglas.AICP Env1rodmcnt 11 Cuardinat /Js� �-'' Rrvie'd rA2 YJ RONMERM ANALYSIS CMMMIST CITY OF NEWPORT HEALS I; BACKGROUND 1. Application NO: 2. project name: �►Q��' y aza �G/ �pe% R— (A_ 'AIAN 3. project location: 45�45 MQ /�1 R1I'�+ A ME RF4e# 4. Applicants L.kR (614 t A/C. C3iVQ. X 1nr ZI. T.n„or,a„xu' U DWAM (See attached explanations) in Mavbo H2 1. gaarth. 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 V 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 ea in siltation, deposition tion 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 J 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? V" Environmental Analysis Checklist - page 2 yg;! 14IIYkS Lt4 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? age b. orathes in rateaandrption amountrofesurfacen terns, runoff? v C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ^ --- tA- d. Change in the amount of surface water X- in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited o temperature, — dissolved oxygen o f, Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial red ation in the water of water supplies? otherwise avail&ble for public 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 numberofof any plantee, �( rare or endangered species �i- 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? eq Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 3 X" Maybe )i4 S. Animal Life. Would the proposal result inr a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and y shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects).? -A b. Redu ction of the numbers of any unique, Bred a — - rare or endangered species of animals? f new c. Introduction o 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? -' g, Land IIse. 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 riot limited to, oil, sticides the event chemicals or radiation) in h 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. Hous . Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? -- . qb Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 4 _ XQA Maybe T?Q 13. TransnortatipnlCirculation/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? - ' f: Increase in traffic hazards to motor Y vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? 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: Y a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? -+A C. Schools? d. Parke or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Rner . 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? — • -- `y' d. Storm water drainage? f� e. Solid waste and disposal? _qi IA . r • 0 Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 5 X" maybe 2iQ 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. $ecreation. 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 historic 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? — — c- III. MMpIkTORY rZIpINGS OF SIGNIFIC =- 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.) — q� Environmental Analysis Checklist - Page 6 1S4Maybe H2 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 COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this ca'aa because the been incorporated into mitigation measures described on the attached pages the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATIOK WILL BE PREPARED' [ ] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRANMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: �dlKtl 1 Dates 4 Signature: Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations f:\...\FORMS\CRECKLST.IS �y 3 Revised 12/91 N1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Harbor Pacific Plaza General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A) Project Decorivtion The proposed site is'located on the northwest corner of Mac Arthur Blvd. and Corinthian Way known as Site lA & Site 111 in the Newport Place Planned Community District(see Exhibit A). The site is surrounded by light Retail Commercial and Professional and Financial Offices. The proposed ,project would involve construction of a retail commercial center that would allow 41,750 square feet of development at a floor area ratio(FAR) of 0.35. FAR The subject parcel is approximately 2.4 acre in size and currently used as part of parldng facility for the operation of Sheraton HoteL Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. 1. Earth The site will be altered to accommodate the proposed on site improvement. The construction activities associated with the foundation of the project will result in minor soil disruption or overcovering and may require excavation and compaction or soil displacement. Compliance with the City Excavation and grading Code(NBMC Sec.15.04.140)would reduce the impacts to insignificant level. 2. Air During the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving may be created However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by The City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. 'Therefore,the effect is insignificant. 3. Water The proposed site is developed with asphalt pavement and future on site improvement would not increase water runoff. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City 0 .r Excavation and Grading Code. The project is located outside flood hazard area. Therefore, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 4. Plant We The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. S, Animal We The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. 6. Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction time is expected to be short due to the small scope of the anticipated project and hours of operation are regulated by the provisions contained in the City Noise Ordfimce(NBMC Chapter 10.28). The proposed site is surrounded by general retail, office, and financial commercial uses. Other noise sensitive land uses are not located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed project. Noise effects are not significant and shall be alleviated upon the completion of the project. 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 Retail and Service Commercial by the City's General Plan Land Use Element with 468'hotel room allocation. Currently,the site is developed with 349 hotel room and has an approval for additional 119 rooms. The Zoning is Planned Community designating the site for hotel and motel uses. A General Plan Amendment is proposed to resubdivide the parcel into two parcels, convert the 119 hotel room allocation to general commercial use and establish development intensity limit for the site. The proposed use is compatible to the land uses of the surrounding area and no adverse impact is anticipated. 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 this project. lo. Risk of Upset There is no risk of any foreseeable hazard due to upset. 11. Population The proposed project would not cause any growth or reduction in the area's population. 12. Housing Minor employment increase is anticipated therefore, no additional housing demand would result from this project. 13. Transportation/Circulation/parking Transportation: A traffic study has been conducted to evaluate the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements. This study indicates that the proposed development would generate up to 6,252 new vehicle trips per day,including up to 530 trips in the morning two-and-one-half hour peak and 773 trips in the evening two-and- one-half hour peak. The analysis determined that the project would result in ! 0 a significant(i.e., 1°lo) traffic increase upon several arterial intersections in the vicinity of the site, as follows: MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Drive (AM and PM) MacArthur Blvd. at Birch Street (AM and PM) MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd. (AM and PM) Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. (N) (AM and PM) Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. (S) (AM and PM) Bristol St. (N) at Campus Drive (AM and PM) Bristol St. (S) at Campus Dr./Irvine Ave. (AM and PM) An analysis was also performed for the General Plan Amendment component of the proposed project This analysis determined that the proposed project, together with the elimination of a previously approved 119 room hotel expansion, would cause a significant increase at all of the intersections listed above, with the exception of Jamboree Road at Bristol (N) in the PM and Bristol Street (North and South) at Campus/Irvine intersections. Intersection Capacity Utilization studies were conducted for each of the intersections and time frames indicated above. The proposed project would not raise the ICU for any location from below 0.90 to above 0.90. The project would not cause measurable increases in ICU at any locations where near- term future conditions are expected to be deficient according to past City studies. The General Plan Amendment associated with the project would result in a measurable increase at one location in the future where deficient conditions are already forecast, MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road in the PM Peak. The impact at this intersection could be mitigated by selecting a land use alternative which would not result in the 0.01 ICU increase forecasted at this location Several reduced intensity alternatives evaluated in the traffic study would meet this requirement. if such an alternative generating less than 109 outbound peak hour trips were selected,mitigation would not be required. With the ovided by adding. a second proposed project, left-turn lane on MacArthur Boulevarate mitigation would be d onto southbound Jamboree Road. Therefore, on the basis of the traffic study either of the following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant: �eation Measure #2a The proposed project shall be modified such that estimated peak hour trip generation does not exceed 109 trips. jv�jtieation Measure #2b A condition of approval shall be adopted requiring that the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road be improved such that no measurable increase in the ICU value will, occur as a result of the project. : There.are two existing drive-ways on the northerly side of Corinthian way that accommodate for access to the proposed General Commercial Site. The Newport Planned Community District Regulations would require a reciprocal easement between the existing Sheraton Hotel Site and General Commercial Site for mutual benefit of circulation and parking. No significant impact is anticipated. p king, The existing on-site parking facilities will be affected as 'a result of the proposed development and use. Although the number of existing parking spaces for Sheraton Hotel Site will be reduced, however the remainder 352 parking spaces will be sufficient for the hotel operation. The proposed retail commercial center would allow 41,750 square feet of development on the site. Parking requirement, for retail commercial is one space per 200 square feet of net floor area Since development of the proposed project will be subject to a Site plan Review process, the amount of required parking spaces would be determined at the time of development plan review. 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or,governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create 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 The project is located in a commercial district 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 parcel is developed and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of 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 brown substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. . q� r MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Harbor Pacific Plaza General Plan Amendment No. 90-3(A) . 1. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed•by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project, 11. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES• Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design,which is verified by plan check .and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which.are satisfied 3prior or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and ( ) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards,•or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed,the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the offciW file. P\-AAZiZA\Co-\MM.coveR �(�0 ATSACHMENr 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Harbor Park Piro(General Plan Amendment No.90 3A) Mitigation Mecum Implementing Action M e t h o d o f Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the isuance of a Planning Department plan 1. Prior to the isswnce of a building balldingpermh chafer permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed,and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light souse and to mlolmke light spillage and Sim to the adjacent properties. The plan shall be prepared and s(gned by a llcem ed Electrical Engineer, with a ktter from the engineer stating that,in his opinim this requirement has been met. cat shall be Coodltioa of Approval File review Prior to the approval of Traffic Department. modified such that estimated peat 2(a) The PsoP� the Trade Study. hour trip generation does na acted 109 trips. 2(b) A condition of approval shall be Condition of Approval Plan Chec Prior to the approval of a Planning Departmen plan adopted requiring that the Site Plan Review or Prior checker to commencement of IntessettionofUscArthurBoulevard construction. and Jamboree Road be improved m . such that no meastr able inerear An the ICU value will ocense as a result of the project. F.\\at)xa\GPA90�3(A)�MM TABiE r. i Attachment 4 VICINITY MAP TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 102 N �4 GP I / PROJECT SITE H h \ 0 SPA b (`� F E A b Z Z Ilk I i 4 �I y4 '` o �,0 F City of Newport'Beach Advance Planning 4-13-95 '�r P0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 cgCl FO RN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714) 644-3225 April6, 1995 John Petry Sanderson/J.Ray Development 2699 White Road Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92714 Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for 4545 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach (TPO#102) Dear Mr.Petry: Per your request, enclosed please find a copy of findings and conditions for approval of Harbor Pacific Plaza project which was approved by the City Council on June 8, 1992. As discussed in our telephone conversation, these conditions may remain valid to become whole or part of the conditions of approval for the proposed 27,000 sq.ft. of retail development. I If you have any questions or need more information, please call me at 644-3236. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER,Director By a ' M A k— Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner F:\WP51\...\Aziz-a\Traffic\TS 102\95peay1 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 03/14/95 09:36 FAX 714 573 9534 KATZ OKITSU O.C. I1001 �v/ I Katz, Oldtsu & Associates 17952 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107 Tustin, California 92680 (714) 573-0317 Fax: (714) 573-9534 TELECOMMUMCATION INFORMATION TO: ��6 5 DATE' n p�hniH 9 Jii�i S.'on TIME: - 41& 92r'/- Ep Z SENDER: �7� f�arfl y TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: --jL— INCLUDING THIS PAGE. OUR FAX NUMBER IS (714) 573-9534 . IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE RECEIVING THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT THIS OFFICE AT (714) 573-0317. SUBJECT: /✓at $ �/ fJ � i 6'� / t�l 'yr�/yi /! 4�: COMMENTS: FAX NUMBER SENT TO: i� SANDERSON M •- FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION • U ' i , • i�I� 'U FROM,--( HARE SAMERSON 2 PAGES: - .0acluding this Cover Sheet) comma a4► /a►IJI 14. 1/" r / Dft,- PLEAS NOTI USI' 'DTRANSMISSION INCOMPLETE ORUNCLEAR TELEPHONE /1 ., . . -oso- o -o !ry , DA TIME FoR W//HI "YOU WERE OUT m 2AAw _ F OF PHONE NO. ExT. TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL RETURNED YOUR CALL WILL CALL AGAIN /' CAME IN TO SEE YOU URGENT 16&� / '&b I � v MESSAGE-2 5-Al CK& ell� ? SEW PART CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V � P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 Cq�/FO RN%P PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714) 644-3225 March 14, 1995 Mr.Rock Miller,P.E. Katz, Okitsu&Associates 17852 E. 17th Street, Suite 107 Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Rock, As discussed in our telephone conversation, this letter is to confirm your authorization to proceed with the traffic study for the Sheraton Center project under the terms contained in your letter of March 14, 1995. The applicant has indicated his desire to process this study as quickly as possible, therefore you will be authorized to bill up to $5,900 if the report is completed by March 28, 1995 Please note that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis evaluates intersections where the project would contribute 1% of the traffic on any approach leg, not 2%as indicated stated on Page 1,Task 3 ofyour proposal. If you have any questions, please call Rich Edmonston(644-3344)or me(644-3230), Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT TAMES D.HEWICKER,Director By. 7 hn H.Ouglas, AICP Principal Planner F:V WINDOWS�PLANNINGVOHN-D\TPO\SHERATON.DOC 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach KLJ Katz, Okitsu & Associates 17852 E. 17th Street, Suite 107 Tustin, California 92680 (714) 573-0317 Rr-Q-ZR',-0 BY Fax: (714) 573-9534 7-ILANNHIG DEPARTMENT EN�1T OF �,.vcP t7„_Ch . March 14, 1995 AM MfiR 15 1995 PM 718191MID112111213141516 Mr. John Douglas Planning Division City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Traffic Study Proposal for Retail Project in the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Douglas: Katz, Okitsu&Associates is pleased to receive a request for proposal to perform work for you on a retail project in the City of Newport Beach. The project is located near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. We are interested in performing the necessary services and submit this proposal accordingly. This proposal was based upon the information you provided, study requirements furnished by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering staff, and our knowledge of the City's traffic study requirements. The traffic study must meet the requirements of the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The City Traffic Engineering staff have provided background information for all intersections that may be subject to this analysis. Our predecessor company, Rock E. Miller and Associates,previously studied a different development on the site, but that study is no longer current. The previous study will be used as a framework for the new study. That study addressed a General Plan Amendment, as well as a site plan review. We presume that the General Plan has been amended, already. Our cost estimate to complete the required study to the satisfaction of the City is indicated in the Scope of Services. The Scope of Services and schedule for this project is presented in the attachment to this letter. If convenient, you may authorize this project by endorsing the proposal on the final page and returning a copy of the proposal to our office by mail or fax. Please contact me if you have any questions about this proposal. This proposal is valid for 90 days. Sincerely, Rock Miller, P.E. Principal TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT BEACH RETAIL PROJECT The following scope of services, schedule and fee would apply to a traffic study for a proposed retail site in the City of Newport Beach. The project is located near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. The project will consist of a 19,000 square foot stationary store, most likely a Staples store, with approximately 7900 square feet of additional general retail area. SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1 - Study Orientation and Scope Refinement Rock Miller will discuss the traffic aspects of the project with the City staff representatives. We will verify our approach and any additional specific study requirements prior to any data collection. We will meet with the City representative if necessary for this purpose. Task 2 - Data Collection Peak-hour traffic counts will be furnished for all relevant Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) intersections by the City of Newport Beach. Based upon our discussions with the City, we do not foresee that any additional intersections will require traffic counts. Mr. Miller will review the location and intersections in the field to observe and inventory roadway geometrics, existing traffic operation, special conditions, and relevant information. Task 3 - Report Preparation A traffic study will be prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates for the development proposal. The study will present all information prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates, including existing Levels of Service, TPO 2% impact analysis, project related traffic volumes, and future traffic conditions. The previous study analyzed seven intersections in detail in the AM and/or the PM peak hour. We estimate that the study update will require analysis of the same intersections, however we believe that the traffic generation for the proposed plan may be lower than for the alternatives previously analyzed. Although a previous study is on file, the proposed project will require modification of virtually all report tables, exhibits, appendices and calculations. Also, the report text sections relating to a concurrent general plan amendment will no longer apply. -1- Task 4 - Mitigation The project may cause a significant impact, pending the results of the traffic study. Without completing the study, it is difficult to determine if there will be any significant impacts. We would estimate a very low chance that there may be such impacts, based upon the previously completed study and the current site proposal. If mitigation measures are required, these may require detailed geometric analyses of the affected intersections, similar to 35% engineering plans. Our Scope of Services and fee does not include manpower or resources for mitigation studies at any location. Within our scope of services, we will develop and provide promising conceptual mitigation measures through restriping, signal modifications, or turning lanes. If mitigation requiring feasibility plans at any location is required, field surveys and site specific civil engineering feasibility studies will be required. These are excluded from the stated fee for our scope of services. They are best prepared as a joint work product of a Traffic Engineer and a Civil Engineer. Task 5 - Submittal and Review of Report Copies of the completed traffic study would be submitted to you for initial review by all appropriate parties. Any proper or reasonable revisions required by the City would be incorporated into the traffic study so that it can be found to be fully adequate to address the needs of the City. Reasonable revisions would include any corrections to the report within the general scope of work, but would exclude any traffic data collection or analysis at any locations except as specified in our proposal. Task 6 - Protect Support Katz, Okitsu & Associates will be available to you and to the project sponsor to discuss traffic aspects of the project from our offices. SCHEDULE The study will normally take approximately three weeks to prepare. The project proponent has requested that we furnish an additional cost estimate to compress the production schedule to two weeks. Any requested revisions would normally be completed within approximately one week following receipt of comments, unless mitigation studies are required. PROPOSED FEE Our total estimated fee for the scope of work and a schedule of three weeks is $4800. Additional costs for reducing the schedule through the use of more experienced personnel would be $1100, for a total fee of $5900. I understand that the proponent may authorize the higher fee, if the schedule is critical to the project. -2- • The actual fee would be based upon the cost of time, materials, and reproduction expenses for Katz, Okitsu & Associates subject to the not- to-exceed amount indicated above. Hourly billing rates and general terms are included on the attached billing rate summary. This estimate includes all services and expenses expected to be necessary to complete the subject project except those noted below. EXCLUSIONS These exclusions describe the situations which most frequently result in the need for extra work and additional compensation. The proposed scope of work and fee does not include any public hearing or meeting attendance by Katz, Okitsu & Associates personnel, except as specifically indicated in the Scope of Services, or as we deem necessary solely to secure City approval of a traffic study. Attendance at additional meetings is billed at $105 per hour with a three hour minimum for Mr. Miller. If the project description or size should change after the project is initiated, it may be necessary to revise the traffic study extensively, and renegotiate the proposed budget. The traffic study will be based upon timely traffic information. It must be processed within 60 days following preparation, or traffic data needs may change. Also, if the project schedule becomes extended for any reason, City requirements may also change. The proposed fee does not include any costs or fees charged by any public agency for its review. These would be paid by the project applicant directly to the City. CONCLUSION Katz, Okitsu & Associates looks forward to working with the City of Newport Beach on the subject project. Mr. Rock Miller of the Orange County office will be your project manager and contact person for this project. He has prepared traffic studies for various clients with projects throughout Southern California. We are familiar with the Transportation staff at the City of Newport Beach and their current study requirements. -3- AUTHORIZATION If convenient, you may sign a copy of this proposal on the indicated line and return it, complete, to our office. The proposal is valid for 90 days. We concur with the terms and conditions of this proposal dated March 14, 1995 and authorize Katz, Okitsu & Associates to commence work. signature Date Print or Type Name & Title pro\nbretail.pro -4- _0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Sanderson/1.Ray Development for Traffic Sy d No.102 on property located at 450 MacArthur Blvd. Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a retail commercial project which would contain 27,000 square feet of retail development NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration had been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with a previous General Plan Amendment application for the subject site. The Negative Declaration stated that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment It is the present intention of the City to validate 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 20th day of April 1995, 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. Garold Adams,Secretary,Planning Commission,City of Newport Beach NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant SUSAN W. CASE OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Glenneyre Street,Suite 7,Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PHONE(714)494-6105 • FAX(714)494-7418 SHEARTON HOTEL 395350 NEWPORT BEACH 300' LISTING 427 174 01,02 APRIL 3 1995 427 111 09 427 Ill 10 427 Ill 11 URSM CORPORATION Edward Allred Andrew Alison Mission Viejo Mall Off 3050 E Airport Way Family Alison #132 Long Beach, CA 90806 PO Box 8040 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Newport Beach, CA 92658 427 121 11 427 121 12 427 121 13 DKBERT ASSOC DKBERT ASSOC DKBERT ASSOC 4443 Birch St 4401 Birch St 4361 Birch St Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 427 121 14 427 121 15 427 121 16 PARAGON STEAKHOUSE RESTA 4321 BIRCH PARTNERS LTD Donald & Mildred Lewis 6620 Convoy Ct 9582 Hamilton Ave 440 Via Lido Nord San Diego, CA 92111 Huntington Beach, CA Newport Beach, CA 92663 92646 427 121 17 427 121 18 427 171 02 George Katcherian Colin Successor West BEACON BAY ENTRPRS INC Antoinette Katcherian Coli West 260 Newport Center Dr 4263 Birch St 16781 Mitchell N Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine, CA 92714 427 171 03 427 172 02 427 172 03 TEPPENYAKI LIMITED PARTN MAC ARTHUR SQUARE MAC ARTHUR SQUARE 233 Wilshire Blvd #295 17631 Fitch 17631 Fitch Santa Monica, CA 90401 Irvine, CA 92714 Irvine, CA 92714 427 172 06 427 173 01 427 174 01 MAC ARTHUR SQUARE Ronald Caspers LARKEN INC 17631 Fitch 4301 Macarthur Blvd 3609 Smith Barry Rd #100 Irvine, CA 92714 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Arlington, TX 76013 427 174 02 427 181 01 445 121 14 LARKEN INC PACIFIC PLAZA ASSOCIATES IRVINE CO 3609 Smith Barry Rd #100 4299 Macarthur Blvd #220 550 Newport Center Dr Arlington, TX 76013 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 445 121 17 445 122 09 445 122 11 IRVINE CO KOLL CENTER NEWPORT #8 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT NUMB 550 Newport Center Dr 4343 Von Karman Ave 4500 Macarthur Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 • 01, 445 122 16�12 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO 043 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach, �C�A-Q 92660 a 990-IG i y�5VRAT • M!/ 1 _ LOT Y TRACT _ N.IE I [M.n6I•.! Au: 122{ I.K A ,;w �� ILI V I3 is - ttli LC. R1RC9 J, a }•s T` 16 9 1 i..•� LJI) ��t A 1 �O •~K r /Yt-w tloTCF/ � /=J00• 1 Ten!'Jc .LD. T9S3 %9VEOI�J fN-� /• i nit "�• B/AL^N S T STREET ' + rRAC `lI�s�f• Lmi�L� L INK! T /J1iiC i LOr VV `$Z A3 ��, -3 �22 LKIwF II6 f L3 3 ��yy , AOTEMSSf35GIS DLOCK• AW57GIIS MtP SUB MM /-BO ar MRML NemmuS loatl�S lRG[IZ pIMRri 19T3 Na 7A53 R/3/,3117-TTO/IJN. SNCMN IN CMCLES CoAv/7 p`a ACE rr Iyp -goe3 M.M JN-5,6.7 Y �� Z dap P.A46/•%66•B.76• :/ .173-J/,l96.10 a � TR T _ §�' •c Ii (zo: zi ©• ie ar�r C�s1 'r9' .' 1al C�z� "u� - rt0 . g > . t A4J 5l69 /'4. ,.�r i AEA 5169 l � ' a r b - ' - _•__ - 2 BDPCN _ - - - _ ___-.__ __ _ _- - ._- _ _ - STREET x•Q/A17/ '��'--�'T�Jaq % r Ap5- !RV/NE • r. .Q- w���j r 15 Os MR. z • c .PAC 1"P • 2 tAa1O i TN.AV. ' py(�ACIV-2S-3pp{C; ,s3 NOTE.ASSESSOR'S AIOOC A ASSESSOR'S MA = t WNO.559 ASA/60-l1-1;AYG rARCCC NVAIAERS ROOK42t PACE Z SMOMN LV CIRCEES COUNTY Of Of r. h ni er..ar t d a $Corr OAYVCa 50 rua wr i" 1'd 7AACT '"•� 4. L rKar-rt AAr>v � • /. Iva1,72 'mrr '' e•, 4• Ah V' •£ 7AACT Na AM 299-15,16 ,�'��•� 0� PARCEL PAC 40-71 ♦ - +T I.JH�14 S KR If-S J F i d I 42-3 45 ZS \1 N07 ASSMWR'S-BLOCK 9 a .� '� �� ♦1. RM Q ul - ,� PARCEL MUNBRS - W 0P5 P �Acr/ 4 4R� SWWH 1M 6rrtRES ♦ d ; a ,}h.. S</B ' SAG i ASSESSOR'S ALP ODUNlY Of ORANGE . d y IN 10 • titi yid . p 1 •'a 1 . Notti�' SUSAN K CASE OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 917 Glenneyre Street, Suite 7 Laguna Beach, California 92651 714/494.6105 FAX: 714/494-7418 Certification of Property Ownership List THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT SHEARTON HOTEL, Newport Beach CA 92660 THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE LATEST Orange County Assessment Rolls April 3 199�j &J"q� SUSAN W. CASE _ LLL _ LLl _ LLI _ LLI LI _ LLL LL J°"VV —Pne,se- _ LLl . _ LLI `� _ LLI _ LLI _ L L l Katz Okitsu &. Associates _ LLI _ LLL _ L_ LI Traffic Phasing Ordinance • for a Commercial Development at MacArthur Blvd and Corinthian Way • in the City of Newport Beach • April 20, 1995 • Prepared for: Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225 Prepared by: Katz, Okitsu & Associates 17852 17th Street, Suite 107 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-0317 Job No.: J95736 • • I • KGB ..I Katz, Okitsu & Associates • 17852 E. Seventeenth Street, Suite 107 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-0317 Fax: (714) 573-9534 • April 20, 1995 • Mr. John H. Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach • 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92659-1768 Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study for a Commercial Development at MacArthur Blvd and Corinthian Way • Dear Mr. Douglas: In accordance with your authorization, Katz, Okitsu & Associates has completed the subject study for a proposed commercial development located on the property of the existing Sheraton Hotel in the City of Newport Beach. The report was prepared according to the guidelines of the Traffic Engineering staff at the City. • The report has been revised to reflect all appropriate comments recieved on the draft study. Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions about the report, or if you need additional information. It has been a pleasure to prepare this report for the City of Newport Beach. • Sincerely, ov4g��� Rock E. Miller, P.E. Principal • sWpk,.*wV9573MBH • • • • Traffic Phasing Ordinance for a Commercial Development at MacArthur Blvd and Corinthian Way • in the City of Newport Beach • Prepared for: • Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225 QVtOFESsj • e2�Q��K E MIS <F2�Z `�: � No,i199 �q # m WD/86 Prepared by: OFCAUFOP�\P Katz, Okitsu & Associates 17852 17th Street, Suite 107 • Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-0317 April, 1995 I• • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page PROJECTDESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 • NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE . . . . . . . . . . . 2 TRIPGENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 TRIPDISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 • SITE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendices: • A. Peak 2 1/2 Hour 1% Work sheets B. Near-term ICU Work sheets • I• • • I • LIST OF FIGURES • Figure Page Number Title Number 1 VICINITY MAP 4 2 SITE PLAN 5 • 3 PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 9 4 PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 5 PROJECT PEAK 2 1/2 HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11 • 6 PROJECT PEAK ONE HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 12 LIST OF TABLES • Table Number Title Page 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS 3 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES & TRAFFIC VOLUMES 7 • 3 ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY - TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 15 4 TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE 23 • 5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION - TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 24 i • • • I • PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The City of Newport Beach has received an application to allow for construction of a commercial project on a 2.45 acre parcel located northwest of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. The parcel would be formed from surplus lands adjoining the existing Sheraton Hotel near the John Wayne Airport. The proposed development for the site would include 27, 000 square feet (sf) of • retail space. A 19,100 sf Staples Office Supply store is expected to be the principal tenant. The land for the proposed site is currently used as excess parking for the hotel. The project would be located on the northwest corner of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. MacArthur Boulevard will form the east boundary for the proposed project. • Corinthian Way will border the site on the south. The remainder of the Sheraton parcel will bound the parcel on the north and west. The site plan for the proposed project shows full access, including left turns onto Corinthian Way. Direct access to MacArthur Boulevard would be prohibited. The parcel will also have access across the Sheraton Hotel parcel to its driveways. • METHODOLOGY A traffic study typically describes and evaluates existing conditions for circulation facilities in the vicinity of the site which could potentially be affected by traffic associated with the • proposed project. This includes identification of existing roadway improvements, current traffic levels, and current operating conditions. Traffic associated with previously approved developments and from committed circulation improvements are then considered, to • determine the traffic conditions likely to result in the near future if the proposed project does not proceed. Traffic forecasts are prepared for the subject development proposal and the effect of development related traffic is assessed. Future traffic operating conditions are assessed to determine if the proposed development will have any impact upon the circulation system. • If unacceptable conditions are forecast, potential circulation changes would be suggested which would improve or preserve forecasted traffic operational conditions. If the need for such improvements can be reasonably attributed to the proposed project, then the project might be required to fund or construct the • necessary improvements. If a portion of the needs can be attributed to the project, funding of this proportionate share might also be required. • • NEBPORT BEACH TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE All proposed developments in the City of Newport Beach must comply • with the provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . This City Ordinance specifies a procedure for identifying the potential impact of a proposed project. The procedure is essentially a two step process. The first step evaluates the peak two-and-one-half hour traffic increases for the proposed project on roadway approaches to significant intersections in a large portion • of the City. Each approach is then analyzed to determine if the proposed project will cause a 1% increase in traffic volume on any approach during the AM or the PM peak period. If the one percent increase criteria is met, the intersection must be analyzed in detail in the corresponding peak hour to determine • if it will cause a significant traffic impact at the intersection. If a significant traffic impact is forecast, the project may be required to mitigate or participate in mitigation of the location. Various streets and intersections will require the first step analysis for the proposed project, however only a small number of • intersections were found to require a detailed analysis. The streets and intersections subject to the first step analysis in this report are shown on Table 1. A predecessor company of Katz, Okitsu & Associates, Rock E. Miller and Associates previously studied potential developments on this • site. The previous study analyzed both a City General Plan Amendment for the site and potential developments for compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The general plan amendment was adopted for the site in 1992, following the completion of these studies. The study examined a variety of preliminary development plans. All development plans contained more development than the • proposed plan, and there was a provision for fast food restaurants on all development alternatives. The study determined that traffic mitigation may be required in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment if the outbound PM peak hour traffic for the parcel exceeds 109 trips. The location of the proposed project and the local and regional circulation system are shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 presents a site plan showing the proposed development. • • 2 • • Table 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS • Staples Office Supply Project North/South Street East/West Street Time Period • MacArthur Boulevard Birch Street AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Campus Drive AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Boulevard AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Newport P1 Drive/ Von Karman Avenue AM and PM • Jamboree Boulevard Birch Street AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Campus Drive AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Bristol Street (S) AM and PM Birch Street Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Birch Street Bristol Street (S) AM and PM • Campus Drive Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Campus Dr/Irvine AV Bristol Street (S) AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Bison Avenue AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Ford Road AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard San Joaquin Hills AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard San Miguel Drive AM and PM • Jamboree Boulevard Eastbluff/University AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Bison Avenue AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard Eastbluff/Ford Rd AM and PM MacArthur Boulevard Easy Coast Hwy AM and PM Jamboree Boulevard San Joaquin Hills AM and PM • • • • 3 • • John Wayne m Airport Orange County t • a p4� � c 0 PROJECT SITE Jy mfhbo Way O oa Q,o o� F� �o ao Sjo/ �oT 9f N oi Sf 73 • BPS 00 North No Scale Eostbluff Universit Bison Av Ford Road San Joa uin Hills gococ • East Coast Hwy FIGURE • S Katz, Okitsu k Associates Vicinity Map 1 Traffic & Highway Engineers • • • • • • • • • • • 1 . I I f Y O 4 • • • " � gi �, avrsnw aeocr. i Ifor ft"~090�/�sgg gw�ra niowam.r>!s area i FIGURE ®Katz, Okitsu & Associates Sheraton Commercial Center (Staples) Traffic & Highway Engineers - Site Plan a TRIP GENERATION • Project related traffic is defined as trips on the study area street system which will begin or end at the project site, as a result of the development of the proposed project. All or part of these trips will result in traffic increases on the streets where they occur. Project related traffic is a function of the extent and type of land use proposed for the site. This information is used to establish trip generation for the site. • Trip generation characteristics for typically occurring land uses are normally based on rates published in Trip Generation, a report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) . This manual indicates the probable traffic generation rates for various land uses based upon studies of existing developments in comparable • settings. The City of Newport Beach has published a list of generation rates for use in traffic studies within the City. These rates are slightly different than the ITE rates, and are based in part upon studies of existing developments in Newport Beach. The City list • includes a rate appropriate for use in this traffic study. Table 2 summarizes the traffic generation rates utilized for the project. The table also shows the forecasted traffic volume on weekdays, including the peak hour and the peak two-and-one-half- hours for the project. • • • • • 6 • • Table 2 • TRIP GENERATION RATES AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES General Retail • Generation Traffic Land Use Rate Volume Daily Traffic 45 1215 AM Peak 2.5 Hours • Inbound 1. 2 32 Outbound 1. 0 27 PM Peak 2 . 5 Hours Inbound 3 . 8 103 Outbound 4 . 0 SOS • AM Peak Hour Inbound 0. 6 16 Outbound 0. 5 14 PM Peak Hour • Inbound 1.9 51 Outbound 2 . 0 54 • Note: All generation rates are trips per 1000 sf of building area. Traffic volume is based upon 27,000 sf development. • • 7 • s TRIP DISTRIBUTION Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes which will be utilized by project traffic. The potential interaction between the proposed land use and surrounding residential areas, employment oppor- tunities, services, and regional access routes are considered to identify the routes where the project traffic will distribute. s The anticipated trip distribution characteristics for project inbound traffic is presented on Figure 3. The distribution of traffic on approaches to the site is in direct proportion to existing traffic volumes on MacArthur Boulevard and on Birch Street. This traffic is distributed to logical and direct approach s routes at intersections remote from the site. The outbound distribution is shown on Figure 4. The outbound traffic distribution is slightly different than the inbound distribution due to turn restrictions, access restrictions, and other factors. The most significant influence is from turn s restrictions on MacArthur Boulevard at Corinthian Way. Left turns are currently prohibited from Corinthian Way onto MacArthur Boulevard. The volume of project related traffic on streets in the study area is determined by considering the traffic generation for the proposed development and the distribution pattern. Figure 5 indicates forecasts of additional vehicular traffic on roadways in the study area for the peak weekday morning and evening 2 1/2 hour study periods. Figure 6 indicates project related traffic for the morning and evening peak one-hour period. I. e • 8 s • John Wayne Airport o a • Orange County �t� 43 4P nt �°oP Cow J°c PROJECT pVS SITE i* • 13% sx CWay,, Jy let J • G°co �/ poke ! to Sf N Sc° er�sf t 73North • �S) No Scale +x a Or t N N N • h Universit ta% s�bluft tA �k L Bison Av t • k' tt Ford Road t 2% 3% Y t o � d% Legend 0San �9uin Hills A t tj • L 00% = Trip Distribution 3X J East Coast Hwy Proposed Project FIGURE �/� pLJgatZ, Ok1t911 & A9SOC)BtES Inbound 3 Traffic do Highway Engineers Trip Distribution • John Wayne r Airport v • Orange County ? p m P� oc k r C �-ptF PROJECT N °�Ip�s Jpc SITE • codnthian / Way. s�loox 05 CMJ �plpQ 37R1 Ziv P y �ppa t i��Pa 9j ti ii J + North 9f 73 No Scale "s o� ^+r - x stbluff ! Universlt 1 M� Bison Av 7 0 N Ford Road „ L M 1pk tt�� ` N iVt N hpC J� Legend San Joaquin Hills `00% = Trip Distribution J East Coast Hwy Proposed Project FIGURE • �lJBatz, Mtn k Associates Outbound 4 Traffic & Highway Engineers Trip Distribution • w L { Jahn Wayne Q a Airport m Orange County Q oc PROJECT SITE 4/I3 • Corinthian Way.` 513" "C 'nse o • �� / O IO/a1 Z V� b OAP i— r/wry h S' S �\ Qpa 2 h J� =i 73North No Scale 1 OO t J N u b �O s bluff llniversit t P� . N c isgn Av ✓ L Ford Road e end 1/3 4 N 7 � 'I-00/00 = AM/PM Traffic Volumes for 2 1/2 Hours Son Joaquin Hills "I 2 yo.A�e N JJJ I/3 N East Coast Hw N N` Proje c t FIGURE N Katz, 01dUu & Associates Peak 2 112 Ho ur 5 Traffic & Highway Engineers Traffic Volumes I• • J r John Wayne Q o Airport $m • Orange County P� h OC j PROJECT SITE ! • i 2/7 Corinthian B• w� 6 P Way. 3ra.. Ch ,w � Ory� �Opti i z O� ti� a9 s J Sf�eof pia •\oti ? ' 0/a�1 7/ • GpCC 0 00�0 5/20 • /fir` / , B�/3 T rn c°i e�'Sfof � 1 73 ti\p North �S) No Scale oQ S\bluff ! Universit t � aN rv\N L a a ison v 1 t • ry n � � JIN u_ P Ford Road L a i 0/2 J ! Legend C1� �-00/00 = AM/PM Traffic Volumes for One—Hour \ San Joaquin Hills o/z a t • a/2o � East Coast Hw � ~` o Projec t FIGURE <21Bflfy, Okitsu & Associates Peak One Hour 6 Traffic & Highway Engineers Traffic Volumes • • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS • The locations where the project may cause a potential traffic impact are identified by determining the volume of traffic increase attributed to the project on roadways and intersections in the vicinity. If the proposed project will cause a 1% increase in the peak two-and-one-half hour traffic volume on any approach to an intersection where traffic conditions are considered significant, then that intersection must be studied in depth to identify any traffic impact or any need for mitigation. Traffic Phasing Ordinance For the traffic phasing ordinance, the one percent test above is based upon predictions of near-term future traffic levels at the appropriate intersections. These forecasts include considerations for existing traffic volumes, annual regional traffic growth, traffic diverted onto committed new highway facilities, and traffic expected from committed development projects which have not been fully constructed or occupied. • The City of Newport Beach maintains an inventory showing existing traffic volumes at all significant intersections in the City. The City also maintains a list indicating all projects which have been approved in the City, but not fully constructed, and traffic volumes associated with all of these projects. A list of traffic • growth factors for all significant arterial streets in the City is also published. These were furnished to Katz, Okitsu & Associates for this study. The one-percent test was applied to the following intersections, in consultation with the City regarding the potential area of impact for the project. The intersections studied are: • MacArthur Boulevard at Birch Street AM and PM Campus Drive AM and PM Newport P1 Drive/ Von Karman Avenue AM and PM • Jamboree Boulevard AM and PM Bison Avenue AM and PM Ford Road AM and PM San Joaquin Hills AM and PM San Miguel Drive AM and PM East Coast Hwy AM and PM • Birch Street at Bristol Street (N) AM and PM . Bristol Street (S) AM and PM • 13 • Jamboree Boulevard at Birch Street AM and PM • Campus Drive AM and PM Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Bristol Street (S) AM and PM Eastbluff/University AM and PM Bison Avenue AM and PM Eastbluff/Ford Rd AM and PM • San Joaquin Hills AM and PM Campus Drive at Bristol Street (N) AM and PM Campus Dr/Irvine Av at Bristol Street (S) AM and PM • Traffic conditions for these intersections were forecast for three years into the future, one year after the anticipated opening of the project. The committed future traffic volumes for each intersection were • compared with the forecasted level of traffic associated with the project from Figure 5. The proposed project would not have a significant traffic impact at locations where the ratio of project traffic to forecasted future traffic is less than one-percent. If this ratio is above one-percent, there is a potential for traffic impact and further analysis will be necessary. Table 3 summarizes the one-percent forecasts for each of the intersections. The proposed project will have a 1% impact at a limited number of study area locations during the AM peak period or the PM peak period. Completed forms for full evaluation of the one percent test at all locations appear in the report appendix. • • • • 14 • Table 3 • ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1% of Peak • 2 1/2 Hour Project signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant MacArthur/Birch (AM) Northbound 16 0 No Southbound 29 10 No • Eastbound 11 13 Yes Westbound 7 5 No MacArthur/Birch (PM) Northbound 27 0 No Southbound 23 35 Yes Eastbound 16 51 Yes Westbound 20 13 Yes MacArthur/Campus (AM) Northbound 19 8 No Southbound 37 8 No • Eastbound 26 0 No Westbound 8 2 No MacArthur/Campus (PM) Northbound 34 31 No Southbound 33 30 No • Eastbound 20 0 No Westbound 31 5 No Jamboree/Birch (AM) Northbound 34 1 No Southbound 59 1 No • Eastbound 4 3 No Westbound 0 0 No Jamboree/Birch (PM) Northbound 48 2 No Southbound 40 3 No • Eastbound 14 11 No Westbound 0 0 No • 15 i• l Table 3 (Con't) ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1t of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- • Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant Jamboree/Campus (AM) Northbound 30 2 No Southbound 57 2 No Eastbound 9 0 No • Westbound 21 1 No Jamboree/Campus (PM) Northbound 54 8 No Southbound 44 5 No Eastbound 18 0 No Westbound 16 3 No MacArthur/Jamboree (AM) Northbound 34 7 No Southbound 20 10 No Eastbound 49 5 No • Westbound 26 0 No MacArthur/Jamboree (PM) Northbound 25 23 No Southbound 37 40 Yes Eastbound 33 15 No Westbound 53 0 No • MacArthur/Newport P1 Dr/Von Karman (AM) Northbound 28 12 No Southbound 13 10 No Eastbound 5 0 No Westbound 5 0 No • MacArthur/Newport P1 Dr/Von Karman (PM) Northbound 20 38 Yes Southbound 17 40 Yes Eastbound 12 0 No Westbound 13 0 No • 16 • Table 3 (Con't) ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance it of Peak • 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant Jamboree/Bristol N (AM) Northbound 93 5 No Southbound 29 4 No • Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 0 0 No Jamboree/Bristol N (PM) Northbound 85 15 No Southbound 52 16 No • Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 0 0 No Jamboree/Bristol S (AM) Northbound 59 5 No Southbound 18 4 No • Eastbound 68 0 No Westbound 0 0 No Jamboree/Bristol S (PM) Northbound 59 15 No Southbound 27 16 No • Eastbound 70 0 No Westbound 0 0 No Birch/Bristol N (AM) Northbound 24 3 No Southbound 8 2 No • Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 32 0 No Birch/Bristol N (PM) Northbound 13 8 No Southbound 33 9 No • Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 63 0 No I• 17 • • Table 3 (Con't) • ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1% of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- • Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume fidant Birch/Bristol S (AM) Northbound 5 0 No Southbound 7 0 No Eastbound 52 3 No • Westbound 0 0 No Birch/Bristol S (PM) Northbound 6 0 No Southbound 14 0 No Eastbound 45 8 No • Westbound 0 0 No Bristol N/Campus (AM) Northbound 52 3 No Southbound 12 2 No Eastbound 0 0 No • Westbound 31 2 No Bristol N/Campus (PM) Northbound 36 8 No Southbound 48 9 No Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 79 9 No • Bristol/Campus-Irvine (AM) Northbound 44 3 No Southbound 12 2 No Eastbound 73 3 No Westbound 0 0 No • Bristol/Campus-Irvine (PM) Northbound 33 8 No Southbound 33 9 No Eastbound 59 8 No Westbound 0 0 No • • 18 • • Table 3 (Con't) • ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance • 1% of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant MacArthur/Bison (AM) Northbound 56 4 No Southbound 57 3 No • Eastbound 8 0 No Westbound 1 0 No MacArthur/Bison (PM) Northbound 47 12 No Southbound 47 13 No • Eastbound 0 0 No Westbound 11 0 No MacArthur/Ford (AM) Northbound 49 3 No Southbound 57 4 No • Eastbound 5 0 No Westbound 25 1 No MacArthur/Ford (PM) Northbound 48 11 No Southbound 69 12 No Eastbound 7 0 No Westbound 12 2 No MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills (AM) Northbound 34 5 No Southbound 49 3 No • Eastbound 6 1 No Westbound 18 1 No MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills (PM) Northbound 30 5 No Southbound 55 10 No • Eastbound 23 3 No Westbound 12 2 No • 19 • Table 3 (Con't) • ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1$ of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- • Intersectionl (Period) Volume Volume ficant MacArthur/San Miguel (AM) Northbound 33 1 No Southbound 28 2 No Eastbound 6 1 No Westbound 8 0 No MacArthur/San Miguel (PM) Northbound 20 2 No Southbound 36 5 No Eastbound 26 3 No • Westbound 9 0 No Irvine/Mesa (AM) Northbound 40 1 No Southbound 14 2 No Eastbound 5 1 No Westbound 2 0 No Irvine/Mesa (PM) Northbound 25 4 No Southbound 45 8 No Eastbound 5 4 No Westbound 5 0 No • Jamboree/Eastbluff-University (AM) Northbound 51 5 No Southbound 45 4 No Eastbound 12 0 No Westbound 13 0 No • Jamboree/Eastbluff-University (PM) Northbound 60 15 No Southbound 64 16 No Eastbound 7 0 No Westbound 13 0 No • • 20 I• • Table 3 (Con't) • ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance • 1$ of Peak 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant Jamboree/Bison (AM) Northbound 52 4 No Southbound 44 5 No • Eastbound 4 0 No Westbound 6 1 No Jamboree/Bison (PM) Northbound 50 13 No Southbound 48 16 No • Eastbound 2 0 No Westbound 7 2 No Jamboree/Eastbluff-Ford (AM) Northbound 54 3 No Southbound 44 4 No • Eastbound 11 1 No Westbound 9 0 No Jamboree/Eastbluff-Ford (PM) Northbound 67 11 No Southbound 61 13 No • Eastbound 11 3 No Westbound 6 0 No MacArthur/East Coast Hwy (AM) Northbound 0 0 No Southbound 15 1 No • Eastbound 26 0 No Westbound 55 1 No MacArthur/East Coast Hwy (PM) Northbound 0 0 No Southbound 28 2 No Eastbound 45 0 No Westbound 40 2 No • 21 Table 3 (Con't) • ONE PERCENT TEST SUMMARY Traffic Phasing Ordinance 1% of Peak • 2 1/2 Hour Project Signi- Intersection/ (Period) Volume Volume ficant Jamboree/San Joaquin Hills (AM) Northbound 49 1 No Southbound 55 3 No • Eastbound 9 0 No Westbound 10 2 No Jamboree/San Joaquin Hills (PM) Northbound 51 4 No Southbound 69 10 No • Eastbound 8 0 No Westbound 25 6 No Notes: Project impact may be significant if project volume is • greater than 1% of peak hour volume. • • • • 22 • • INTERSECTION ANALYSES • Evaluations of traffic conditions at intersections in Newport Beach are made using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of traffic analysis. The ICU analysis measures the ratio between traffic volume and intersection traffic capacity for a given intersection geometry. This essentially indicates of how close the • intersection will be to its traffic-carrying capacity. The ICU allows for the determination of the operating Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection. Level of Service is a report card scale evaluating traffic performance. Table 4 presents a brief definition of each Level of Service and shows the relationship between ICU and Level of Service. • Table 4 TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE • Level of ICU Level of Service Service Rancre Description A 0. 00-0. 60 Excellent, Light Traffic B 0. 60-0.70 Good, Light to Moderate Traffic C 0.70-0.80 Moderate Traffic, Insignificant Delay • D 0.80-0.90 Heavy Traffic with Significant Delay E 0.90-1. 00 Severe Congestion and Delay F 1. 0 and Up Failed, Traffic Cannot Be Handled • Level of Service D is the customary maximum allowable "standard" Level of Service during peak hours at intersections. The City of Newport Beach has adopted this standard. Mitigation measures are considered or required for traffic at poorer levels. Mitigation is required from a development, when its traffic will cause a 0.01 increase in an ICU from below 0.90 to above 0.90. • A detailed Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis must be performed for all of the locations and time periods where traffic increases of it or more are forecasted on any intersection approach. This analysis is performed to determine if there will be a significant Level of Service condition and a traffic impact as • defined above. • 23 • • Intersec tion traffic volumes were forecasted in the AM and PM peak • hours for ICU studies in the same manner as the two-and-one-half hour forecast for the one percent analysis. Existing traffic volumes are adjusted for annual growth, and traffic volumes associated with approved developments and the proposed project are combined into the forecasts. The City furnishes work sheets for this purpose. Table 5 indicates the existing ICU as well as the • projected future ICU with and without the proposed project. Table 5 • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Traffic Phasing Ordinance Future Future without with • Intersection (Time) Existing Project Project MacArthur Blvd at: Birch (AM) 0.37 0.42 0.42 Birch (PM) 0.58 0.61 0. 61 Jamboree (PM) 0.83 1.01 1.01 Newport Place Dr/ • Von Karman (PM) 0.51 0.54 0.54 The project will not increase any ICU from below 0.90 to above 0.90. Also, the project will not result in an increase of 0. 01 or . more for any ICU above 0. 90. MITIGATION Mitigation measures will not be required to remedy project related traffic at any of the locations studied under the guidelines of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • When the City's General Plan was amended to allow for retail commercial uses on the site, the accompanying traffic study determined that mitigation would be required if the development was found to have an outbound peak hour traffic generation of 109 trips or more. The proposed project will have an outbound pm peak hour • generation of 54 trips, so mitigation will not be required according to the previously completed General Plan Amendment. 24 BITE ANALYSIS The site plan for the proposed development was inspected for compliance with accepted design procedures and guidelines. The city will conduct a complete review of the site plan in conjunction with this application. SUMMARY A retail commercial development is being proposed on the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will generate 1215 new vehicle trips per day, including 30 trips in the morning peak hour and 105 trips in the evening peak hour. These trips will result in • traffic increases on streets in the project vicinity. An analysis of this proposed development was performed consistent with the procedures and guidelines of the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing ordinance. The analysis determined that the proposed project will result in a significant (1%) traffic increase upon • several arterial intersections in the vicinity of the site, as follows: MacArthur Blvd at Birch Street (AM and PM) MacArthur Blvd at Jamboree Rd (PM only) MacArthur Blvd at Newport Place Dr/ Von Karman (PM only) • Intersection Capacity Utilization studies were conducted for each of the intersections and time frames indicated above. The proposed project was not found to raise the ICU for any location from below 0.90 to above 0.90. The project will not cause measurable increases in ICU at any locations where near-term future conditions • are expected to be deficient according to past City studies. • 25 • • • A • a • • Appendices: A. Peak 2 1/2 Hour 1% Work sheets B. Near-term ICU Work sheets r • 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 94 AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 1372 28 215 1615 16 0 Southbound 2194 44 634 2872 1 29 j 10 Eastbound 1122 0 3 1125 11 i 13 Westbound 657 0 6 663 7 5 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� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: staples OFFICE Supply Store FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Winter/Spring 94 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved . Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1937 39 681 2657 27 0 Southbound 2006 40 249 2295 23 j 35 Eastbound 1530 0 13 1563 16 51 westbound 2010 0 1 2011 20 ! 13 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ® Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ♦ (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • ♦ DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Sp—F-fn-g-7fFF4TM_ Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project • Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1664 33 217 1914 19 I 8 South bound 3088 62 578 3728 37 j 8 • Eastbound 2563 0 76 2639 26 i 0 Westbound 829 0 1 830 8 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected M Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization • (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ! • • DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1994 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project w Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h How Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2670 54 690 3414 34 31 Southbound 2y80 60 263 3303 33 30 Eastbound 1952 0 6 1958 20 i 0 Westbound 3098 0 21 3119 31 5 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected x Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 40 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ♦ DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I I • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection a R H STREET (Existing Traffic Volu mes ase on verage inter pring 19 94 AM • Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 2601 52 712 3365 34 1 Sorthbound 3988 80 1879 5947 59 i 1 Eastbound 353 0 2 355 4 I 3 Westbound 20 0 0 20 0 0 • - Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples office Supply Store I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Verage inter pring 4 ) PM • Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h HoL Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 3156 63 1600 4819 48 2 Southbound 3174 64 713 3951 40 3 Eastbound 1395 0 29 1424 14 11 Westbound 37 0 0 37 0 0 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • DATE' �97/95 PROJECT: • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 21% Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 2213 67 674 2954 Southbound 3989 Eastbound 596 0 302 898 9 i 0 40 Westbound 1787 0 301 2088 21 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• • PROJECT:509Iw 0F6c%—&uF 3Store FncM r • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng 93 PM • Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 3676 111 1623 5410 54 8 Southbound 3637 1 110 1 659 4406 44 5 Eastbound 1736 0 92 1828 18 0 Westbound 1484 0 110 1594 16 3 • -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume • ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 4�ao�S • PROJECT:StVd.5 (('fi�5�pp�&hDra rnpm 7 • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection RT ase ra H R BOU es EVARD (Existing Traffic Volum on vege Inter pring 19 94)AM • Peek 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 231 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 2984 60 405 3449 34 7 LWestbSound bound 978 20 976 1974 20 10 3673 74 1108 4855 49 i5 1791 36 748 2575 26 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection E ROAD MACARTHUR BOULEVARD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage nter pr ng 1994 PM • Peak 21% Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hou• Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1954 39 533 2526 25 22 • Southbound 3117 63 563 3743 37 40 Eastbound 2340 47 943 3330 33 15 Westbound 4304 87 871 5262 53 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 Ox Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 • PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/NEWPORT PLACE-VON KARMAN (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pring _F AM • Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak A Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Northbound 2556 51 205 2812 28 12 • South bound 19 383 1344 13 10 Eastbound 492 0 7 499 5 i 0 Westbound 513 0 4 517 5 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/.95 • PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store I • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/NEWPORT PLACE-VON KARMAN (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _) PM • Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hou Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1607 32 347 1986 20 1 38 Southbound 1517 30 155 1702 17 40 Eastbound 1128 0 30 1158 12 i 0 Westbound 1324 0 1 1325 13 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected © Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 • PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage nter pr ng � Ate • Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Protect Direction Peak 29 Hour Growth Peak 2§ Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 8198 165 902 9265 93 5 • Southbound 1940 39 918 2897 29 j 4 Eastbound -0_ 0 0 0 0 0 Nestbouad _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 • O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �] Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 0 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection B STREET NORTH JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage nter pring 1994 PM • Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume • Northbound 7079 142 1232 8453 85 15 Southbound 4240 85 899 5224 52 16 Eastbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • - DATE• 3/27/95 • PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring 19 93)PM • Peak 21y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1'. of Projected Project II Direction Peak 2y Hour I Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4671 • 142 1126 5939 59 5 ;I Southbound 1985 60 669 2714 27 1 i� Eastbound 1 5952 0 i 1054 7006 I 70 0 Mestbound 0 0 0 0 0• 0 i ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • DATE• Lf • PR0JECT:S•tw1Q-% O�6u Sapplbskor, • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1 93 PM • Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I� Direction Peak 2k Hour I Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4671 150 777 5888 59 5j Southbound 19-85 29 847 1827 18 4 i Eastbound 5952 0 i 1372 6774 i 68 0 Westbound 0 0 0 0 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. oOJQS • PROJECT.S+aQ)ta CRu- J1Qp���JfU(� FORM I • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on ve age nter pr ng 9q AM Peak 2)1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Haur Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 2386 0 38 2424 24 3 Southbound 684 0 83 767 8 2 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 L:We:stbound 2725 p 448 3173 32 0 • _. Q 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 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 • PROJECT: 5/,Y/es D��'ce S /r�� 5�orc. I • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/BIRCH STREET • (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng 94 )pM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 1244 0 11 1255 13 8 Southbound 3171 0 79 3250 33 91 i Eastbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 i • Nestbound 5278 0 998 6276 63 ! 0 El 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 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store I • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pr ng _ m • Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 22 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 22 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Northbound 473 0 20 493 5 0 • South bound 578 0 75 653 7 0 Eastbound 4336 0 867 5203 52 3 Westbound _0_ 0 0 0 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. • • 3 27 DATE• / /95 • PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 93 pM • Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1', of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Northbound 634 0 0 634 6 0 • Southbound 1336 0 46 1382 14 0 Eastbound 3982 0 479 4461 j 45 8 Westbound —0— 0 0 0 0 0 • ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected • ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 li• PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store L • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/CAMPUS DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average nter prin 1994 AM • Peak 24 Hour Approved Fopiperor ach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1i of Projected Project tion Peek 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 5145 0 40 5185 52 3 • Southbound 1157 0 30 1187 12 2 Eastbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 i 0 Westbound 2616 0 456 3072 31 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume • ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • '• • • DATE: 3/27/95 0 PROJECT: • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring t)Pal • Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hou Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 3571 0 0 3571 36 8 Southbound 4617 0 140 4757 48 9 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound • 6855 0 1031 7886 79 9 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • DATE: 3/27/95 • PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR—IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 231 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2$ He Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume • Northbound 3952 0 ! 419 4371 44 3 Southbound 991 30 190 1211 12 2 Eastbound 6645 1 0 669 7314 73 3 ' Westbound 0 0 0 0 ! 0 • fal Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Lew 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: PROJECT: 5taple5 04'Fic>_ S.Wly kY� • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR-IRVINE AV • (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring U)pM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 215 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 3002 0 251 3253 33 8 southbound 2823 86 378 3287 33 9 Eastbound 5600 0 289 5889 1 59 8 • Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 ' —0— fvt Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 1�1 Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 'A ,• DATE: u(ao(as PROJECT:S+agkgs CW$ca.. S.1991y StDO- • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring M3 AM • Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 5276 160 188 5624 56 4 5outhbound 4828 146 714 5688 57 3 Eastbound 740 0 59 799 8 0 I Westbound _0— 0 82 82 1 i 0 • O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • III M DATE• U/2UJgS • PROJECT:Std9kc5 OfGts,. &9p1j Si-cr,- • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 93 PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4029 122 536 4687 47 12 i Southbound 4307 131 277 4715 47 13 Eastbound 963 0 177 1140 11 i 0 i Westbound • —0— 0 20 20 0 0 a 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 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • DATE• y�80LI5 • PROJECT: d9WS (X;C.o. <SVWIJ S-hr� I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Sp—M—g7FETAM • 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 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4255 86 551 4892 49 3 • Southbound 4913 99 666 5678 57 4 Eastbound 480 0 20 500 5 0 l Westbound 2350 0 152 2502 25 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 • PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store I • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring _ pM • Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 4091 124 648 4863 49 i 11 • Southbound 6052 183 729 6964 70 12 Eastbound 663 0 20 683 7 ; 0 i Westbound 1189 0 34 1223 12 2 • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected x Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: U.120195 • PROJECT: Okiv- SJ, P,j S4bro. rnou . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng 99 AM • Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 29 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 2928 89 334 3351 34 5 Southbound 3785 115 990 4890 49 3 Eastbound 516 0 -102 618 1 6 i 1 • ; Westbound 1647 0 170 1817 18 1 O 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE• Lt. 80�gS • PROJECT:,StdPkas U'ica- SJPj� �zr� • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / San Joaquin Hills Rd • (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pring PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 2558 78 393 3029 30 5 Southbound 4623 140 710 5473 55 i0 Eastbound 1825 0 469 2294 1 23 I 3 • i Westbound 1121 0 71 1192 12 2 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. • • • • '• DATE: q/20'gS PROJECT:5-r8p D��ics S�ppl� � • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/SAId MIGUEL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng I _ AM • Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peek 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume YQume Volume Northbound 3053 61 205 3319 33 1 Soutnbound 2200 44 605 2849 28 2 i Eastbound 505 0 106 611 6 I 1 Westbound 624 0 194 818 8 0 • O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • DATE: 3/27/95 • PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD SAN MIGUEL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pr ng 94 pM • Peak 2h Nour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak Volume Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound � • 1830 37 166 2033 20 J 2 southbound 3107 62 475 3644 36 5 Eastbound 2143 p 438 2581 26 I 3 Westbound 797 • __ 0 102 899 g 0 a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • I0 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store DATE: 3/27/95 • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE AV/MESA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197E37AM • Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 3498 106 442 4046 40 1 southbound 1201 36 199 1436 14 2 Eastbound 480 0 20 500 5 ; 1 Westbound 193 0 0 470 2 i 0 • n Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected max+ Peak 2k 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: Wao.Qs • PROJECT: 'SiodA SADr- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE AV/MESA DR • (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Sp—Fn—g—ffDTFPM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Protected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 2182 66 287 2535 25 + 4 northbound 4010 122 408 4540 45 8 Eastbound 476 0 0 476 5 i 4 • I Westbound 470 0 0 470 5 ! 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • • DATE: L4Jaolgc PROJECT: 5taots C�Rtl_ S. Oj I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD EASTBLUFF DR N—UNIVERSITY DR • (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage nter pr ng AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 4428 134 570 5132 51 5 southbound 3290 100 1130 4520 45 j 4 Eastbound 1045 0 126 1171 12 i 0 • Westbound 1189 0 L 84 1273 13 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 231 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. • • • • • PROJECT: DATE: WaolgS ,s`��G.S O�$�+- S0p(�y ��'� • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF DR—UNIVERSITY DR • (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9,L) PM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 H Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume • Northbound 4757 144 1113 6014 60 15 Southbound 5369 163 854 6386 64 16 Eastbound 676 1 0 39 715 7 ; 0 i • Westbound 1219 0 34 1253 13 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 2-1-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: c4 Iaoh5 PROJECT: • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng 94 ) AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project • Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4073 82 1033 5188 52 4 Southbound 3063 62 1260 1 4385 44 j 5 • stbound 356 0 48 404 4 0 L.Ea ertbound 533 0 52 585 6 1 • Ea Peak 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 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization • (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pr ng 94 PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project • Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3696 74 1236 5006 50 j 13 Southbound 3573 72 1117 4762 48 16 • Eastbound 0 26 242 2 i 0 216 Westbound 583 0 160 743 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization • (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I • I • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/FORD—EASTBLUFF DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Verage inter pring 993TAM • Peak 2y Hour Approved ADP roach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1f. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2q Hour Growth Peak 2> Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume � Volume Northbound 4161 1144 5431 54 I 3 • Southbound 3056 93 ' 1254 4403 44 4 Eastbound 937 0 162 1099 j 11 I 1 Westbound 0 162 850 9 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. • • • • PROJECT: S�c7�eS Oita �lppk� Ste^— DATE: • FORM I • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd Ford Rd st of • (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on ve%ge nter pr ng 23 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 4932 149 1640 6721 67 10 Southbound 4614 140 1302 6056 61 13 I Eastbound 1097 0 42 1139 11 • ' Westbound 449 0 166 615 6 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �] Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization. (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • • DATE: �aU�gS PROJECT: &apu-% OqS cs Supp1J S+Dl� • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd • (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 93) AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 3 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound —0— 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1226 37 230 1493 15 1 Eastbound 2437 74 112 2623 1 26 i 0 i • i Westbound 4788 145 616 5549 55 ! 1 Q 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 23z, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • • DATE PROJECT: Of-u SO4 ��- c��aU�9S • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy / MacArthur Blvd • (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring FFERM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume • Northbound _0_ 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 2342 71 423 2836 28 2 Eastbound 4111 125 311 4547 45 0 i • ' Westbound 3634 110 276 4020 40 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 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • • PROJECT: Staoes NG-L► &903 SinrL DATE: • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Verage n er pr ng 94 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project • Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3706 74 1088 4868 49 I 1 Southbound 4063 82 1400 5545 55 3 • Eastbound 909 p 32 941 9 0 Westbound 861 1 0 108 969 10 2 • ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • I• I• DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng � pM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project • Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3859 78 1200 5137 51 4 Southbound 5489 110 1 1329 1 6928 1 69 10 • Eastbound 484 0 304 788 8 ' 0 Westbound 2443 0 89 2532 25 6 • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2.11 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • • DATE: 3/27/95 PROJECT: Staples Office Supply Store FORM I • I • • • • • • • B. Near-term ICU Work sheets • • • i MA4295AN • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MIICARTHUR BOULEVARD i BIRCH 4295 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 AM ......................•_____....--_--__....-_.__._...-_...__....._................._.....___. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCHMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I WC I • 1 lCapacityleapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume IW/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------__.._ ....I I NL 1 1600 1 1 59 1 0.04 1 1 1 10 1 0.04* 1 0 10.04*1 I -----------•-------------•----------•---------------------••--•-•--------------------- -I NT I 4WD 1 1 482 1 0.10 • 10 1 99 1 0.12 1 0 10.12 1 I---------------------- -----•--------------------------•------------------i----.----------I SL ---- -----• --------------- --------- - ------•-• __---------- I • i MR i H.S. i � Its 1 0.09 1 3 1 O I 0.09 1 5 ___I 10.10 1 I ----------------------------------------------------------------------•------.-------- -I I ST I 1 599 1 12 1 312 1 0.19*1 0 10.19*1 I--------) 6400 ------------------) 0.14 -------------------------•-----------•---------I . 1 SR 1 1 �----------- - 1 - 1 ----•-----I- 0 1 I I EL I 1 101 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 I --- •). ......-----•-••-..--- -> ---------------------------•--------------------•- -I 1 ET 4800 1 1 365 0.12 • 7 1 0 1 0.12* 1 3 1 0.12*1 1. .._. _). ...................... .) ---•--•••---------•.__.__------------------------- -I l ER 1 1 92 1 2 1 p 1 1 0 1 1 I----------- _----------•-------- •----•----------------------------"•-__---•-I • 1 WL 1 16001 1 361 0.021 1 1 1 1 0.02 1 2 10.02 1 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------••--•--------------- _I I WT 1 3200 1 1 201 1 0•06 " 4 1 2 1 0.06* 1 0 10.061 --------I--------I--------'-----5--I--------I--------I----------------------------------•-•I WR N.S. 1 pl I pl I 1EXISTING 1 0.37 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.42 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.42 1 .................................•.........----....---........_........._.................... • El 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 greeter 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: StaplEs Office Supply Store 3/27/95 PROJECT FORM 11 • MA4295AN • } MA429SPH • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD B BIRCH 4295 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PM ..........................................•-.---..................._......__..._............. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolume I WC I • 1 ICepacitylCapacityl 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 1 NL 1 1600 I 1 165 1 ono • 3 1 0 1 0.11* 1 0 10.11*1 I ---------------------------------------------------•----------------•----------------- -I NY 1 49001 1 6991 0.151 14 1 340 1 0.22 1 0 10.22 1 I •------------------------•----------------------------------------------------..--.-... .I • 1 MR I N.S. I 1 21 I 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 I I. ..------ ----- -I SL 1 16001 1 481 0.031 1 1 0 1 0.03 1 5 10.03 1 i --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -I I $T 1 1 595 1 12 1 123 1 0.14* 1 0 10.14*1 I--------) 6400 ------------------) 0.12 ..............................................I I SR I I 185 4 1 2 1 I l I -------------- ---------- - EL 1 1 303 1 6 1 5 1 1 4 1 1 I --- -)• -------------••------- _)------------------------------------------------------- ET 4800 1 1 317 0.14 • 6 1 2 1 0.14* 1 3 10.15*1 I........ ..........................)------------------------------------------ -- --•- I I ER 1 1 55 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 I••------------------------•-------•-----------------•••-•--••---------••--------------•---•I • I WL 1 1600I I 911 0.061 2 1 0 1 0.06 1 2 10.061 I -------------------•-•---••---•-----••--------------------------------•---- 1 I WT 1 3200 1 1 704 1 0•22 . 14 1 1 1 0.22* 1 0 10.22*1 I --------•-------------------------------------------------------------------------•--- -I WR I N.S. 1 1 2111 1 4 1 0 1 ...... 1 0 1 I I•-------------------•-••---•----------------------------••-.---- .---------•--•I 1EXISTING 1 0.58 1 I • 1---------------------------------••-----•----••------••--------------------- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPGSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.61 1 I 1 ---------------------------------------------------------•--.-------------------•-•--- -I 1EX1STING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.61 1 ........................••...•...............•.--.------..-•......_............____.......... • lxl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_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 Staples Office Supply Store 3 27 95 FORM 11 • MA429SPH • • JA4275PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS • INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROADIE-W) i MACARTHLR BOULEVARD(N-S) 4275 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PM ............................................................................................. IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC@MITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1Volume I V/C I I lespeeitylCapocityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I • I I I I I 1 1 I Volume I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I ML 1 1600 1 1 327 1 0.20 • 7 1 20 I 0.22* I 0 I0.22*1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NY 1 1 393 1 8 1 207 1 0.18 1 11 10.18 --------) 4800 I-----------------) 0.12 i_..-----'-------------------------------------I MR 190 • 41 I---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------I 1 sL 1 1600 1 1 219 1 0.14 1 4 1 15 1 0.15 1 0 10.15 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ST 1 4800 1 1 970 1 0.20 * 19 I 150 I 0.24* 1 12 I0.24*1 I---------------------------------------------------------- -- --.....__....- - 'I I SR I N.S. 1 1 569 1 1 11 1 68 1 ._1_ 81 1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- • 1 EL 1 3200 1 1 277 1 0.09 • 6 1 150 1 0.14* 1 8 10.14* I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ET 1 4800 1 1 7131 0.151 14 1 318 1 0.22 1 010.22 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 ER I N.S. 1 1 351 1 1 1 5 1 1 01 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I • 1 WL 1 3200 1 1 553 1 0.17 1 11 1 53 1 0.19 1 0 10.19 1 I----------------------------------------------------------- - - - -- I WT 1 4800 1 1 1628 1 0.34 • 33 1 337 1 0.42* 1 0 10.42*1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I WR I M.S. 1 1 205 1 1 4 1 45 1 1 01 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I EXISTING 1 ---- I I ------------------------------ IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 1 .01 0 1 1 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 11 .01 51 ............................................................................................. 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 • IN 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 then I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: * Note: Future + Proj is .005 greater than Future w/o Project. PROJECT Staples Office Supply Store 3/27/95 FORM II . JA4275PH I • I • NA4285PN • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NICARTIRIR BOULEVARD 8 NEWPORT PL/VON KARMAN 4285 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1994 PM ..................•...••....--........--••----...•.-----..-•--•---..................---.•---. I 1EXISTINGIPROMSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI 101ovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I Y/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVotume I V/C I • 1 1Capacity1C8p8city1 Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume [w/o Project[ I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I --•-------------------•.-.----. . I NL I 160D 1 1 66 1 0.04 * 1 1 2 1 0.04* 1 0 10.04*1 I-----------------------•---------------------•-------------------------------- I NT 1 45001 1 4701 0.10 1 9 1 173 1 0.14 1 19 10.14 I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I • I NR 1 16001 1 1151 0.071 2 1 0 1 0.07 1 0 10.07 I I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•--I I sL I 1600 I I 42 I 0.03 1 1 1 0 1 0.03 10 10.03 I 1-------------------------------------------------- -- -•---- -- --• - ---•----•---------•- 1__.ST__.1__.4800.1_.._..__1. 558 1 0.12 * 11 1 76 1 0.13* 1 20 10.14*1 ----------------------------••---------•----------. . SR 1 1600 1 1 30 1 0.05 1 2 1 2 1 0.05 1 0 10.05 I • i-'.EL.'------•••--------------------------•------_---------------•----- . 1 0.07 1 0 10.07 1 I..__..__1._.1600 1 1 971 0.061 2 1 - --_._... . 8 ET 1 3200 1 1 269 1 0.08 * 5 1 2 1 0.09* 1 0 10.09*1 I------------------------------- -------------------------- -----•---------------- ER 1 16001 1 242 1 0.15 1 5 1 6 1 0.16 1 0 10.16 1 I--•---•--•------------•- ---------- .--- ------ • I WL 1 1600 1 1 431 1 0.27 * 1 0 l 0.27* I o 10.27 I I---------------------------•-----------------------g- - .... I Wr 1 3200 1 1 212 1 0.07 I 4 1 1 I 0.07 1 0 10.07 I I---------------•---------- •--------------•---------- 1._.WR 1_-_1600.1_.._.._.1_ ---301 0.021 1 1 0 1 0.02 1 0 10.02 1 -----------------------------------------------------------1 1EXISTING 1 0.51 I ' • I-•---•----------'•-------------•-----------------------------•----_---..--.- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.54 1 I 1--'••------'•-------------•-------------•--- •----------'•----------------I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.54 I 1_� Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 • 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will • be less than I.C.U. without project -.--•-----------------•.---.-------.---.--_--_.---...--..------------_-------•.------•--- Description of system improvement: PROJECT Staples Office Supply Store 3 FORM 11 KA4285PM I• • �o�i�o�y �� TRAFFIC STUDIES APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: ' 62 PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE ,311 o, LIV 3-14-95 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR MACARTHUR & CORINTHIAN PROJECT 6490.00 (' 'Iii�lqu, I �I I� �it �lill ilil i�I�'I li I'I �I ICI IlLiil�ll i THE ATTACHED CHECK PLEASE DETACH IS IN PAYMENT OF THE THIS REMITTANCE ADVICE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE BEFORE DEPOSITING CHECK SEW PORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V 0 P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 o-� -it/Fog N r Building Department - (714) 644-3288/3289 100 FEE RECEIPT DATE •`�'� � PLAN CHECK N0. Received F m Job Adelress Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Zoning Plan Check .....................................010-5003 E Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Fire Plan Check ....................................... 010-5055 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..........................010-5002/5004 $ Additional Building Plan Check .........................010-5002 $ Special Inspection........ ... ........... .............. ..010-5008 $ Preliminary Code Compliance Review .....................010-5002 $ Reinspection B E H P.................................010-5008 $ Reinspection Fire ......................................010-5050 $ Temporary Electric............. ................. 0-4612 $ Temporary Gas...................................oK 0 0-4616 $ Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ............da 1 5.J008 $ Underground Utilities Waiver ....... WAR.. ....010-2225 $ • Grease Interceptor...........................dm 17fRQ(15{- Planning Department Fees................... ... ..........010-5000 $ Sale of Maps & Publications.............................010-5812 $ Determination of Unreasonable Hardship..................010-5018 $ Microfilm Copies/Photocopies......................... ...010-5019 $ Hazardous Material Disclosure. ........... ... ... .........010-5021 $ Fire Dept. Hazardous Material Review....................010-5058 $ x other 7� O6ZJ OIO•�3d� $ a 9 CIO OD X � �� O/O. 6D/b S`?O Oa RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. 6 QO. 6b pa� (f\fcercpt6-94) CITY OF ��EWAo Memo NEWPORT BEACH TO: FROM: DATE: Z �U • COPIES TO: GNATURE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �,ti 1P0 PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION o� �. , 0 Demand of: Sanderson/J. Ray Development U cg41FoVA% Address: 2699 White Road Irvine CA 92714 Date: 8-29-95 Amount: Item of Expenditure Invoice No. Budget No. Amount rPO#150fuf r54 Sheraton Center Retail Project • $498.36 TOTAL Descrlptlon/Speclal Instructions: Date: _ Department Approval: • Date: Acctg. Mgr. Approval: 'Date: Fin. Mr. Approval: �J Katz, Okitsu & Associates 17852 E. 17th Street, Suite 107 Tustin, California 92680 (714) 573-0317 (213) 260-4703 Fax: (714) 573-9534 (213) 260-4705 PLANNINGA DEt'ARTMENT NTY OF,NFWPORT BEACi' INVOICE Client: Mr. John Douglas AM h1F.Y 15 •i)95 PM City of Newport Beach, Planning Dept 71819ITlfll1211l21314IK;6 3300 Newport Blvd. i, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Date: 05/12/95 Invoice J95736x2 PO # 15054 Project: Traffic Study for Sheraton Center Retail Project Billing for work: April 1, 1995 thru May 5, 1995 - - ------------- ------ ------------------------ Previous Current Total Hourly Labor TITLE Hours Hours Hours Rate Subtotal Firm Principal 14 5.5 19.5 $105 $2,047.50 Eng. Assistant 44 15 59 $37 $2,183.00 Eng. Technician 21 9.5 30.5 $32 $976.00 Aide/Intern 0 3 3 $25 ---- $75.00 TOTAL HOURS 79 33 112 $5,281.50 EXPENSES Previous Current Total Subconsultant $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Printing/Plotting $80.27 $39.87 $120.14 Freight $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Mileage $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL EXPENSE $120.14 TOTAL COST TO DATE $5,401.64 LESS PREVIOUS BILLINGS $3,850.27 COST, THIS INVOICE $1,551.37 TOTAL AUTHORIZED $5,900.00 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PROGRESS 920/0 $5,428.00 ----------------- ----------------- PLEASE PAY $1,551.37 Please make a check payable to: Katz, Okitsu & AsstTA ROVED FOR PAYMENT 1200 Corporate Center Drive,"Suite 140 Monterey Park, Ca I ornia 91764nnr' la ing Director Rock E. Miller ��;h�3' �+ .. lS�`ir7_ Principal o/o�130� REC IVEC) By ppLJ���� PLANNINGEDE,'ARTMENT � Katz Okitsu & Associates 17852 E. 17th Street, Suite 107 Tv OF NFWPOPT Brikr%l} Tustin, California 92680 APR 11 1995 (714) 573-0317 (213) 260-4703 AM Fax: (714) 573-9534 (213) 260-4705 ��R,ri,l(I,ILt9.7,�J.q PM . . , 141516 INVOICE Client: Mr. John Douglas City of Newport Beach, Planning Dept 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Date: 04/06/95 Invoice J95736x1 PO # 15054 Project: Traffic Study for Sheraton Center Retail Project Billing for work: - Start date thru March 31, 1995 ----------------------------------------- Previous Current Total Hourly Labor TITLE Hours Hours Hours Rate Subtotal Firm Principal 0 14 14 $106 $1,470.00 Eng. Assistant 0 44 44 $37 $1,628.00 Eng. Technician 0 21 21 $32 $672.00 Aide/Intern 0 0 0 $25 $0.00 TOTAL HOURS 0 7.9 79 $3,770.00 EXPENSES Previous Current Total Subconsultant $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Printing/Plotting $0.00 $80.27 $80.27 Freight $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Mileage $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL EXPENSE $80.27 TOTAL COST TO DATE $3,850.27 LESS PREVIOUS BILLINGS $0.00 COST, THIS INVOICE $3,850.27 TOTAL AUTHORIZED $5,900.00 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PROGRESS 65% $3,850.27 PLEASE PAY PAY $3,860.27 ----------------- ----------------- Please make a check payable to: Katz, Okitsu &Associates 1200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 140 Monterey Park, Cali? i 7 tt•E a - m By Rock E. Miller - Principal Pla ing Director I PURCHASE ORDER; F PAGE 1 POR CITY OFo NEWPORT NEWPORT RBEACH PURCHA�Saf�RPERNUMBER u i P.O. BOX 1.768 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8915 FoaN`P PHONE: (714) 644-3118 4, „ ,I, 'UP I- PURCH.ORDER DATE DATE REQUIRED REQUISITION NO. VENDOR NO. DESCRIPTION 03/17/95 1006 TRAFFIC STUDY VENDOR KALT7., OKITSU E: ASSOCIATES SHIPCITY OF NE;VPORT REACH 37852 E. 17th STREET TQ PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUITE 107 3300 NE117PORT BLVD., TUSTIN, CA 92PA0 N0VFORT BEACH. CALIF. 0261133 ATTN: JOH11 DOUGLAS CONFIRM. I BLANKET I FINAL PAYMENTTERMS FREIGHT T;t-I NO NET 30 DAPS N/A QUANTITY UNIT OF MEASURE COMMODITY CODE UNIT PRICE EXT5N8ION ILTTN: ROCK MILLER. P.E. PROVIDE A TRAFFIC STUDY ATIALYSIS FOR SHERATON CENTER RETAIL PR03tCT, MveARTHUR 80IILEVAM i,, CORINTHIAN i1'A7i PER CITY AND YOUR PROPOSAL DATED 3/14/95 (TS #102) . TOTAL $3.900.00 01 1 .00 LOT ${)O,atJ� - Ir kt1011,00 5,Owl.fill TRAF� JC STUA1 AS DESCRIDED A:BOVP, ,t SUBTOTAL 5.11100.00 FREIGHT 0.00 TAX 0,1)(1 PURCHASE ORDER TOTAL 5. 900.00 W— RGANIZATION A U T PROJECT PROJECTACCOUNT M UNT TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER 5, 9110.n0 • r ACCEPTANCCAcc•pfonceolthlsomorby sallarNandor will babyhag reodandaomous or byterch,and meglatorinpenofgth the ose pcalladeac for hmanorg. try n-aephrg ail.order.m.eelierivandmac4nmNedaee met he oaf read and agrees to all terms endrondnian.Inaludiaa those printed each;revorea BY aidsof this CorimcbPurchuse Order.The only farms and conditions thetwlll be applicable to the Interpretation of this Contract are those behind by the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Cl"f Newpode+ach IMPORTANT GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. The Attcico covered by this Purchase Omer or Contract grant Conform t i applicable Cal-OSHA Standards,andrer other appropriato laws,regulations,rules,and code of Federal Government and the Stale of California.Show as a separate Item any retail sales tax,use tax or Faderal tax applicable to this purchase.This order subject to California sales tax All OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS:the CITY will pay any selostueo tax on ell purchases shipped from out-uf-slate.All purchases and transportation charges are exempt from Federal excise lax.NOTE:All purchases are F.O.B.destruction unless othorwiso authorized,Charges for shipments are to be fraight �.. prepaid and added to the Invoice(shown as a separate item)where so authorized Do not Include Federal transportation tax.A Newport Beach business license may be required to conduct business In the City. ORIGINATOR'S/DEPARTMENTAL COPY 1 r� «" PURCHASE ' CITY OF ��WPoRr REQUISITION ��i)N NEWP BEACH � it GGFOFL `. P.O.No.: Date: March 15, 1995 (If Reserved) Dept: PLANNING i Suggested Vendor: 'ship To: Roc Mil p F - _____ Attn: John Douglas Katz,' Okitsu & Associates _ Planning Department 17852 E. 17th Street, Suite 107. ,_ Tustin CA 92680 Attention: Phone No.- Quantity Description of Articles or Services Required Unit Price Amount Budget,# A Traffic Study Analysis for Sheraton $5,1900.00 010 2J00 Center Retail Pro eet, MacArthur, Blvd. & , Corinthian Way. (TS #102 , Comments: Sub Total $5900.00 deposited into account 010 2300 3/15/95 _ . Tax Total Date Required: F.O.B. Terms Code Amount 77(Department or person authorized to cxm tc requisitions) G MANAGER FiNANcE DIRECTOR(Approval required for purchases exceeding,$2,000) SEW POD e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • U �_ P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 . �<I FO RN PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714) 644-3225 March 14, 1995 Mr.Rock Miller,P.E. Katz, Okitsu&Associates 17852 E. 17th Street, Suite 107 Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Rock, As discussed in our telephone conversation, this letter is to confirm your authorization to proceed with the traffic study for the Sheraton Center project under the terms contained in your letter of March 14, 1995. The applicant has indicated his desire to process this study as quickly as possible, therefore you will be authorized to bill up to $5,900 if the report is completed by March 28, 1995 Please note that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis evaluates intersections where the project would contribute 1% • of the traffic on any approach leg, not 2% as indicated stated on Page 1, Task 3 ofyour proposal. If you have any questions, please call Rich Edmonston(644-3344) or me(644-3230). Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D.PIEWICKER,Director By J hn H. uglas, AICP Principal lanner F:l WINDOW S\PLANNINGVOHN-D\TPO\SHERATON.DOC • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach • KA7 Katz, Okitsu & Associates 17852 E. 17th Street, Suite 107 A Tustin, California 92680 YI (714) 573-0317 REL'EilGO By Fax: (714) 573-9534 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1:4 1"V OF NE1VPORT BEACR March 14, 1995 AM MAR 15 1995 PM Mr. John Douglas 718191101111121i1213141516 � Planning Division City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Traffic Study Proposal for Retail Project in the City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Douglas: Katz, Okitsu&Associates is pleased to receive a request for proposal to perform work for you on a retail project in the City of Newport Beach. The project is located near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. • We are interested in performing the necessary services and submit this proposal accordingly. This proposal was based upon the information you provided, study requirements furnished by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering staff, and our knowledge of the City's traffic study requirements. The traffic study must meet the requirements of the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The City Traffic Engineering staff have provided background information for all intersections that may be subject to this analysis. Our predecessor company, Rock E. Miller and Associates,previously studied a different development on the site, but that study is no longer current. The previous study will be used as a framework for the new study. That study addressed a General Plan Amendment, as well as a site plan review. We presume that the General Plan has been amended, already. Our cost estimate to complete the required study to the satisfaction of the City is indicated in the Scope of Services. The Scope of Services and schedule for this project is presented in the attachment to this letter. If convenient, you may authorize this project by endorsing the proposal on the final page and returning a copy of the proposal to our office by mail or fax. Please contact me if you have any questions about this proposal. This proposal is valid for 90 days. Sincerely, A,rw) t,z 7 . 101/10 . Rock Miller, P.E. Principal TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT BEACH • RETAIL PROJECT The following scope of services, schedule and fee would apply to a traffic study for a proposed retail site in the City of Newport Beach. The project is located near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. The project will consist of a 19, 000 square foot stationary store, most likely a Staples store, with approximately 7900 square feet of additional general retail area. SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1 - Study Orientation and Scope Refinement Rock Miller will discuss the traffic aspects of the project with the City staff representatives. We will verify our approach and any additional specific study requirements prior to any data collection. We will meet with the City representative if necessary for this purpose. Task 2 - Data Collection Peak-hour traffic counts will be furnished for all relevant Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) intersections by the City of Newport Beach. Based upon our discussions with the City, we do not foresee that any additional intersections will require traffic counts. • Mr. Miller will review the location and intersections in the field to observe and inventory roadway geometrics, existing traffic operation, special conditions, and relevant information. Task 3 - Report Preparation A traffic study will be prepared by Katz, Okitsu & Associates for the development proposal. The study will present all information prepared by Katz, okitsu & Associates, including existing Levels of Service, TPo 2% impact analysis, project related traffic volumes, and future traffic conditions. The previous study analyzed seven intersections in detail in the AM and/or the PM peak hour. We estimate that the study update will require analysis of the same intersections, however we believe that the traffic generation for the proposed plan may be lower than for the alternatives previously analyzed. Although a previous study is on file, the proposed project will require modification of virtually all report tables, exhibits, appendices and calculations. Also, the report text sections relating to a concurrent general plan amendment will no longer apply. • -1- Task 4 - Mitigation • The project may cause a significant impact, pending the results of the traffic study. Without completing the study, it is difficult to determine if there will be any significant impacts. We would estimate a very low chance that there may be such impacts, based upon the previously completed study and the current site proposal. If mitigation measures are required, these may require detailed geometric analyses of the affected intersections, similar to 35% engineering plans. Our Scope of Services and fee does not include manpower or resources for mitigation studies at any location. Within our scope of services, we will develop and provide promising conceptual mitigation measures through restriping, signal modifications, or turning lanes. If mitigation requiring feasibility plans at any location is required, field surveys and site specific civil engineering feasibility studies will be required. These are excluded from the stated fee for our scope of services. They are best prepared as a joint work product of a Traffic Engineer and a Civil Engineer. Task 5 - Submittal and Review of Report Copies of the completed traffic study would be submitted to you for initial review by all appropriate parties. Any proper or reasonable revisions required by the City would be incorporated into the traffic study so that it can be found to be fully adequate to address the needs • of the City. Reasonable revisions would include any corrections to the report within the general scope of work, but would exclude any traffic data collection or analysis at any locations except as specified in our proposal. Task 6 - Protect Support Katz, Okitsu & Associates will be available to you and to the project sponsor to discuss traffic aspects of the project from our offices. SCHEDULE The study will normally take approximately three weeks to prepare. The project proponent has requested that we furnish an additional cost estimate to compress the production schedule to two weeks. Any requested revisions would normally be completed within approximately one week following receipt of comments, unless mitigation studies are required. PROPOSED FEE Our total estimated fee for the scope of work and a schedule of three weeks is $4800. Additional costs for reducing the schedule through the use of more experienced personnel would be $1100, for a total fee of $5900. I understand that the proponent may authorize the higher fee, . if the schedule is critical to the project. -2- The actual fee would be based upon the cost of time, materials, and • reproduction expenses for Katz, Okitsu & Associates subject to the not- to-exceed amount indicated above. Hourly billing rates and general terms are included on the attached billing rate summary. This estimate includes all services and expenses expected to be necessary to complete the subject project except those noted below. EXCLUSIONS These exclusions describe the situations which most frequently result in the need for extra work and additional compensation. The proposed scope of work and fee does not include any public hearing or meeting attendance by Katz, Okitsu & Associates personnel, except as specifically indicated in the Scope of Services, or as we deem necessary solely to secure City approval of a traffic study. Attendance at additional meetings is billed at $105 per hour with a three hour minimum for Mr. Miller. If the project description or size should change after the project is initiated, it may be necessary to revise the traffic study extensively, and renegotiate the proposed budget. The traffic study will be based upon timely traffic information. It must be processed within 60 days following preparation, or traffic data needs may change. Also, if the project schedule becomes extended for • any reason, City requirements may also change. The proposed fee does not include any costs or fees charged by any public agency for its review. These would be paid by the project applicant directly to the City. CONCLUSION Katz, Okitsu & Associates looks forward to working with the City of Newport Beach on the subject project. Mr. Rock Miller of the Orange County office will be your project manager and contact person for this project. He has prepared traffic studies for various clients with projects throughout Southern California. We are familiar with the Transportation staff at the City of Newport Beach and their current study requirements. -3- AUTHORIZATION • If convenient, you may sign a copy of this proposal on the indicated line and return it, complete, to our office. The proposal is valid for 90 days. We concur with the terms and conditions of this proposal dated March 14, 1995 and authorize Katz, okitsu & Associates to commence work. Signature Date Print or Type Name & Title pro\nbretail.pro • i • -4-