HomeMy WebLinkAboutSaagar Fine Indian Cuisine (PA2005-026) 4248 Martingale WayCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
August 18, 2005
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
jm u rillo(cDcity. newport- beach.ca. us
(949) 644 -3209
SUBJECT: Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant
Use Permit No. 2005 -004 (PA2005 -026)
4248 Martingale Way
APPLICANT: Gurcharan Singh Sandher
REQUEST
This is a request to allow the operation of an eating and drinking establishment and to
authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption pursuant to the
Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance (ABO). Additionally, the request involves approval of
Traffic Study No. 2005 -003, pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 2005 -004
and Traffic Study No. 2005 -003, subject to the findings and conditions of approval
included within the attached draft resolution.
BACKGROUND
The subject property has been improved for restaurant uses since April of 1973, prior to
the use permit requirement for restaurants. In 1974, the Planning Commission
approved a Use Permit No. 1727 allowing limited live entertainment in conjunction with
restaurant use. On April 17, 1975, the Planning Commission amended Use Permit No.
1727 permitting live entertainment on a nightly basis, whereas it had previously been
limited to Sundays from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM. On January 10, 1985, the Planning
Commission amended the use permit again to permit. the establishment of patron
dancing with prerecorded music in conjunction with the restaurant. On November 9,
1988, the Planning Commission approved another amendment to Use Permit No. 1727
to expand the net public area to 2,600 square feet and eliminated patron dancing and
live entertainment.
Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant (PA2005 -026)
August 18, 2005
Page 3
The last operator, Mermaids, eventually operated the restaurant and attempted to
amend the use permit in 1994 to allow adult live entertainment. This amendment was
denied by the City Council and the City closed the establishment due to illegal activities
in the mid 1990's, and the restaurant site has thus remained vacant and abandoned for
nearly 10 years now.
DISCUSSION
Site Overview
The subject property is located on Martingale Way, west of MacArthur Boulevard. An
irregular sized lot, the property is approximately 33,729 square feet in area and is
improved with a 7,072 square foot single -story commercial building. The existing building
is situated at the southwest corner of the property, adjacent to Dolphin Striker Way. The
project will provide 62 on -site parking spaces. Additionally, the site shares the 218 space
common parking area through a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjacent
Hamburger Mary's and Classic Q's Billiards establishments.
Proiect Overview
The applicant proposes to operate a fine Indian Cuisine restaurant, similar to Bukhara
Cuisine of India, which the applicant has owned and operated since 1992 within the City
of Huntington Beach. The proposed menu for the restaurant is also anticipated to be
similar to their Bukhara restaurant. The proposed hours of operation are from 11 AM to
10 PM, Monday through Sunday. The number of employees during peak hours will vary
between 8 to 10 persons. No live entertainment or dancing is proposed. Full meal
service will . be available during all hours of operation and alcoholic beverage service
(Type 47 ABC license - On -sale General) is requested.
The 7,072 square foot restaurant has net public area (NPA) of approximately 2,696
square feet, which includes the dining areas, waiting room, hostess counter, bar area,
and buffet area. The remaining 3,541 square feet of floor area on the ground level is
devoted to accessory uses (kitchen/storage /restrooms). Additionally, an 835 square foot
basement area exists which is proposed to be used as storage area. The overall net
public area for Saagar's Indian Cuisine remains the same as the previous restaurant
uses.
Minor changes are proposed to the interior of the building consisting primarily of
repainting and re- carpeting. However, the large stage used previously by Mermaids will
be demolished to allow for additional dining area. The existing small stage located in the
northwest portion of the dining room will remain and will be converted into a display stand
to display the applicant's collection of Indian musical instruments. No entertainment of
any type is proposed to be performed on this display stand.
I
Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant (PA2005 -026)
August 18, 2005
Page 4
Additionally, the applicant intends to complete minor revisions to the exterior of the
building, including completely repainting the structure. The opaque exterior glazing will be
removed from the three large windows in the front of the building and skylight at the rear.
The decorative brass light band and lighted trellis accent features around the perimeter of
the building are proposed to be removed, as well as the light bulbs accenting the canopy
over the main entrance, which will be resurfaced. The landscape planters around the
structure will remain in place, and new landscaping will be planted to match the on -grade
landscape planters in the parking lot. New signage will be installed per Chapter 20.67 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Additionally, the existing 64 on -site parking spaces
will be re- striped to incorporate the required handicapped spaces and path of travel,
reducing the overall number of parking spaces provided to 62 spaces.
Analysis
The proposed eating and drinking establishment requires approval of a use permit per the
Newport Place PC and the Zoning Code, and for the establishment of a new alcoholic
beverage outlet (ABO) per Section 20.89 (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets) of the Municipal
Code.
General Plan
The site is designated as Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial by the
General Plan Land Use Element. Eating and drinking establishments are permitted uses
within this land use designation.
Zoning
The subject property has a zoning designation of PC -11 (Newport Place Planned
Community). The property is more specifically located within Restaurant Site No. 1 of the
PC -11 zoning designation, which permits restaurants uses with the approval of a use
permit.
Restaurant Development Standards
Chapter 20.82.040 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for
restaurants, as outlined below, to ensure that any proposed development will be
compatible with adjoining properties and streets. The development standards include
specific requirements for site requirements, building setbacks, parking and traffic
circulation, walls surrounding the restaurant site, landscaping, exterior illumination,
underground utilities, and supply and refuse storage. Section 20.82.040 D of the
Municipal Code states that any of the above mentioned development standards for
restaurants may be modified or waived if strict compliance is not necessary to achieve
the purpose or intent of the standard.
Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant (PA2005 -026)
August 18, 2005
Page 5
Development Standards
Hours of Operation
The restaurant will be open seven days a week. The proposed hours of operation are
Monday through Sunday, from 11 AM to 10 PM. The proposed hours of operation are
typical of restaurants, and given the location in a commercial area with no nearby
residential uses, staff believes they are acceptable. Staff recommends limiting hours
from 11 AM to 12 AM to allow flexibility in future operations. Staff does not have
I
Site:
Site shall be of sufficient size and configuration to
Partially Complies. The site is 33,729 square feet in
satisfy all requirements for off -street parking,
area and is an existing development that generally
setbacks, curb cuts, walls, landscaping and refuse
meets the restaurant development standards.
storage as provided by Section 20.82.040 of the
Municipal Code.
Setbacks:
The City may establish more restrictive setbacks 0 it is
Partially Complies. The proposed use is to be located
determined that It is necessary or desirable for the
within an existing structure which complied with all
protection of the public health, safety or welfare or to
setbacks at the time of construction in 1971.
insure the compatibility of uses on contiguous
properties.
Off-Sheet
Off-street parking in accordance with the provisions of
Complies. No change proposed to the existing
Parking:
Chapter 20.66 of the Municipal Code
configuration with the exception of the loss of 2
substandard parking spaces to accommodate disability
code requirements. The site provides 62 parking spaces
for the use, which exceeds the required 54 spaces.
Furthermore, a traffic study was prepared in which the
on -site parking supply was analyzed and determined to
be adequate to meet the forecast parking demand
generated by the project.
Circulation:
Parking areas and driveways to facilitate traffic and
Complies. The traffic circulation has been reviewed by
circulation of vehicles on and around the facility and to
the City Traffic Engineer in conjunction with the approval
.
provide adequate sight clearances.
of the original construction of the site. Additionally, the
construction plans are conditioned to require the Traffic
Engineers review prior to issuance of permits to insure
compliance with City Standards -
Wafts:
A solid masonry wall 6 feet high shall be erected on all
Waiver. Walls would restrict the traffic circulation on the
interior property lines of the subject property. Walls 3
property due to the common parking lot shared by two
feet in height shall be erected between the on -sHe
other adjacent uses through a reciprocal parking
parking areas and the public right-of-way.
agreement.
Landscaping.
10% of entire site, 3 foot wide landscape area shall be
Waiver. The project site is an existing development
provided to screen the parking area from the public
which generally provides landscaping in accordance with
right -of -way. A 3 foot wide landscape area adjacent to
the Newport Place Planned Community landscape
the interior property lines shall be provided,
development regulations. Additionally, a majority of the
interior property lines intersect the shared common
parking lot and landscaping adjacent to the property fine
would not be feasible.
Lighting."
Parking lot and site illumination height and intensity; to
Complies. The existing lighting on the subject property
minimize the reflection of lights to the streets and
does not appear to pose a problem to adjacent
neighboring properties.
properties. New lighting associated with the proposed
use is required to adhere to this requirement.
Utilities
All utilities required to be undergrounded.
Complies. The project site is served by underground
utilities.
Suppy Sfora
Supply storage to be contained within a building,
Complies. No outdoor storage of supplies is permitted.
Refuse Storage
Refuse storage outside of a building shall be hidden
Complies. A new trash enclosure with metal gates is
from view by a solid masonry wall 6 feet in height with
proposed to be constructed on the south side of the
self-locking gates.
building to replace the existing wood enclosure. A
condition of approval has been included to require the
trash enclosure to comply with this requirement.
Hours of Operation
The restaurant will be open seven days a week. The proposed hours of operation are
Monday through Sunday, from 11 AM to 10 PM. The proposed hours of operation are
typical of restaurants, and given the location in a commercial area with no nearby
residential uses, staff believes they are acceptable. Staff recommends limiting hours
from 11 AM to 12 AM to allow flexibility in future operations. Staff does not have
I
Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant (PA2005 -026)
August 18, 2005
Page 6
concerns related to the extended hours due to the lack of sensitive land uses nearby.
The other two adjacent restaurants operate as follows:
• Classic Q's : 10 AM to 2 AM
• Hamburger Mary's (Formerly Trophy's): 11 AM to 2 AM
Parking
The parking standard for restaurants specified by the Municipal Code is 1 parking space
for each 30 to 50 square feet of net public area. The speck ratio applied is based on the
operational characteristics of the establishment. Given the restaurants operational
characteristics as a fine dining establishment, serving gourmet Indian cuisine, a longer
dining experience and low patron turnover is expected. Staff believes a parking ratio of 1
space per 50 square feet of net public area is appropriate. Using this calculation, the
required number of parking spaces required for the restaurant is 54 spaces (2,696 sq. ft.
of NPA 1 50 = 53.92 or 54 spaces). After re- striping the parking lot to provide for
handicapped accessibility, the restaurant will provide a total of 62 on -site parking spaces,
will result in an excess of 8 additional parking spaces. The restaurants operation does
not include live entertainment or dancing, and in conjunction with the spare parking on
site and the access to the additional spaces through the reciprocal parking agreement on
the common parking lot, a higher parking ratio seems unnecessary. Furthermore, a traffic
study (discussed below) was prepared in which the on -site parking supply was analyzed
and determined to be adequate to meet the forecast parking demand generated by the
project.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)
A traffic study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) when a project
will generate more than 300 average daily trips (ADT). Because the site has been vacant
for nearly 10 years, the TPO does not allow for trip credits for the prior restaurant
operations. Therefore, the proposed restaurant has been forecasted to generate
approximately 684 average daily trips, exceeding the 300 average daily tips threshold. A
copy of the TPO is attached as Exhibit 2 for reference. A traffic study has been prepared
by Katz, Okitsu, and Associates (Exhibit 3) under the supervision of the City Traffic
Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines.
The traffic study identifies the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the
proposed development. The project is forecast to open in year 2005, therefore analysis
has been conducted for the year 2006.
Potential impacts to nine intersections within the project vicinity were analyzed using the
methodology required by the TPO. A 1% traffic volume analysis was used to determine
which of the nine intersections will require additional analysis and was determined that
only two of the intersections will experience a project impact of larger than 1 W
• Von Karman & MacArthur Boulevard
• Birch Street & MacArthur Boulevard
5
Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant (PA2005 -026)
August 18, 2005
Page 7
The other seven intersections were omitted from the iCU analysis as they did not
increase the volume by more than 1% during the peak hours.
The City considers a Level of Service (LOS) D as the upper threshold limit for satisfactory
operations. Mitigation is required for any intersection where project traffic causes the
intersection to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E. If an intersection is operating at LOS E
or worse in the baseline condition, project impact occurs when the project - generated
traffic increases the ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) by 0.01 or more.
The study concludes that the two intersections studied are forecast to continue to operate
at satisfactory levels of service (LOS A) during both the morning and evening peak hours
and therefore, no mitigation is required and all findings required per the TPO can be
made.
Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) Ordinance
The applicant is requesting a Type 47 License to permit the on -site consumption of
beer and wine and distilled spirit. Section 20.89.030.6 of the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet
Ordinance (ABO) requires the Planning Commission to consider the following factors:
1. Whether the use serves public convenience or necessity.
2. The crime rate in the reporting district and adjacent reporting districts as
compared to other areas in the City.
3. The number of alcohol licenses per capita in the reporting district and in
adjacent reporting districts as compared to the county -wide average.
4. The numbers of alcohol - related calls for service, crimes or arrests in the
reporting district and in adjacent reporting districts.
5. The proximity of the alcoholic beverage outlet to residential districts, day
care centers, park and recreation facilities, places of religious assembly,
and schools.
In accordance with the foregoing, and in order to provide the Planning Commission with
the necessary data and analysis to make the required findings, each of the factors is
discussed as follows:
1. Public Convenience or Necessity. The proposed alcohol outlet is for full service
fine dining restaurant. The service of beer, wine, and distilled spirits is made for the
convenience of patrons dining at the restaurant. The Newport Place Planned
Community includes provisions for such restaurant uses, and the restaurants can be
viewed as complementary to the surrounding retail, office, and industrial uses. The
Police Chief is designated by Council Policy K -7 to be responsible for making an official
finding of public convenience and necessity on behalf of the City. The Police Chief is
prepared to make this finding as the proposed establishment is a restaurant and not a
bar or nightclub.
W
Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant (PA2005 -026)
August 18, 2005
Page 8
2. Crime Rate. Citywide, there were 5,889 crimes reported during calendar year
2004, of which 2,508 were Part One Crimes (serious offenses). The remaining 3,381
were Part Two Crimes that include alcohol related arrests. The project site, located is
located within Police Reporting District No. 34. The Part One Crime Rate for the RD,
two adjacent RD's, City, California and. National averages are shown in the following
table for comparison.
RD No.
34:
937 500.00
1 Citv Average:
3314.74
RD No.
31:
3,717.83
1 California:
4003.50
RD No.
36:
2400.55
1 National:
4063.40
The crime rate in RD 34 is significantly higher due to the limited population of the RD.
During 2004, the number of Part One Crimes in RD No. 34 was 150 and the number of
Part Two Crimes was 88. RD No. 31 had 39 Part One and 24 Part Two Crimes; and RD
No. 36 had 105 Part One and 54 Part Two Crimes. While the number of reported total
crimes is higher within the RD of the subject project site as compared to surrounding
RD's, the Police Department believes that the actual amount of crimes in the area is not
considered significant due to the fairly high concentration of commercial uses within RD
No. 34, and RD Nos. 31 and 36 are primarily residential.
3. Over Concentration. There are a total of 28 active ABC licenses within RD No.
34. The census tract within which the restaurant is located has a higher ratio of liquor
licenses to population (1 license for every 2 residents) when compared with the average
ratio for Orange County (1 license for every 592 residents) due to the high
concentration of commercial uses and nearly non - existent residential uses within the
census tract. As noted by the Police Department report, the requested on -sale alcohol
license is not expected to generate additional crime problems in the area due to the
nature of the business and its location within the airport area. An additional alcoholic
beverage license within the area is not considered by the Police Department as
detrimental to the community.
4. Alcohol Related Crimes. The Police Department has provided statistics for
driving under the influence and plain drunk arrests. There were a total of 92 arrests,
with 20 driving under the influence arrests and 8 plain drunk arrests within RD No. 34 in
2004. The percentage of alcohol related arrests within RD No. 34 is 30.4 %.
City-wide, alcohol related arrests account for 35% (1,238/3,550) of all arrests made.
The alcohol - related arrest rate in the two adjacent reporting districts is 19% for RD No.
31 and 28% for RD No. 36. The rate within which the project is located, RD No. 34, is
lower than the city-wide average and higher than the two adjacent RD's. However, the
Police Department does not believe that the proposed request will generate a
significant number of alcohol - related incidents.
16
Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant (PA2005 -026)
August 18, 2005
Page 9
The sale of alcohol in the restaurant is ancillary to the restaurant use and although it
has an actual bar, the establishment is not intended to operate primarily as a bar. Food
service will be offered during all hours of operation.
5. Adiacent Uses. The site is located within a commercial area near John Wayne
Airport. Surrounding uses are dominated by retail commercial and general office. The
only potential sensitive land use is the Radisson Hotel, which has approximately 339
rooms and is approximately 750 feet away. There are no residences, day care centers,
schools, or park and recreation facilities in the vicinity of the project site.
In accordance with the ABO Ordinance, the Police Department has reviewed the Use
Permit application and has determined that no additional conditions related to design
and security is necessary.
Use Permit Findings
In addition to the required ABO findings, the Zoning Code requires the Planning
Commission to make certain findings for use permits. These findings are listed and
discussed below.
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General
Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of
persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use, and
will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the
general welfare of the city.
3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any
specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would
be located.
The proposed restaurant with ancillary alcoholic beverage service meets the intent of the
Zoning Code and Planned Community District Regulations as the site has been
designated for restaurant use and provides the total number of required parking spaces.
Based on the review of the proposed operating characteristics of the restaurant including
hours of operation and Police Department reports, staff believes the above findings for
approval can be met in that the proposed use will not likely be a detriment to the site or
the community. The restaurant is located within the airport commercial area and given
the location of the site, in conjunction with the absence of residential uses in the vicinity,
staff believes this makes this an acceptable location for the establishment. The
surrounding land uses are dominated by commercial and professional offices.
(i
Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant (PA2005 -026)
August 18, 2005
Page 10
Additionally, the proposed project is intended to redevelop a structure that has been
abandoned for nearly ten years since the previous restaurant use, and will complement
the surrounding commercial uses of Classic Q Billiards and Hamburger Mary's Bar and
Grille (formally Trophy's).
Environmental Review
This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing
Facilities). There will be no significant environmental impact as the proposed project is
located in a fully developed area.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this
hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Conclusion
Considering the required findings of the Use Permit for the restaurant and Alcoholic
Beverage Outlet ordinance, and based on the location of the establishment, its
operational character and the fact that the site is presently designated and developed
for this use, staff believes that the findings for approval of a Use Permit can be made
and that the operation will not prove detrimental to the community. Additionally, the
findings for the approval of a traffic study prepared per the TPO are possible because
the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at satisfactory levels of
service (LOS A) during peak hours. The site is conducive to a restaurant operation by
design and the on -site consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a full -
service, fine dining restaurant use is viewed as complementary to the area.
Prepared by:
JairTre Murillo, Associate Planner
Exhibits
Submitted by:
Patricia L. Temple, PI nning Director
1. Draft Resolution No. 2004 -_; findings and conditions of approval
2. Traffic Phasing Ordinance
3. Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Study
4. Project Plans
Ix
EXHIBIT 1
Draft Resolution No. 2004- ; findings and conditions of approval
13
RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -004 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4248 MARTINGALE WAY (PA2005 -026)
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Saagar Fine Indian Cuisine Restaurant
with respect to property located at 4248 Martingale Way, and legally described as
Parcel 2 of Resubdivision No. 347, requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow the
operation of a restaurant and to allow the restaurant to operate with a Type 47 (On -Sale,
General, Eating Place) Alcohol Beverage License, and approval of Traffic Study No.
2005 -003 pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO).
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 18, 2005, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of
time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and
oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting.
WHEREAS, a use permit for the proposed eating and drinking establishment has
been prepared and approved in compliance with Chapter 20.91 (Use Permits and
Variances) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons:
1. The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning
Code and the purpose of the district in which the site is located because the
restaurant is within the site designated for restaurants by the PC -11 District.
2. The location of the proposed eating and drinking establishment requiring this Use
Permit, and the proposed conditions under which it will be operated and
maintained, is consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the PC
District 11 in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or
adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the
properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City for
the following reasons:
a. The site is designated Administrative, Professional & Financial
Commercial by the General Plan Land Use Element and zoned PC District
11 (Newport Place Planned Community). Eating and drinking
establishments are conditionally permitted uses within the General Plan
and Zoning Code designations.
II
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 2 of 9
b. The existing restaurant site is located within the airport commercial area and
surrounding land uses are dominated by commercial and professional
offices. Restaurant uses can be expected to be found in this and similar
locations and are complimentary to the commercial uses.
c. The restaurant site is not located in close proximity to residential districts
and there are no sensitive uses such, day care centers, schools,
playgrounds or hospitals located in the close vicinity of the project site.
d. The restaurant has been conditioned in such manner to meet the intent of
the Zoning Code and Planned Community District Regulations, including
any specific conditions required for the proposed restaurant and to require
strict adherence to safety and noise regulations.
3. The proposed eating and drinking establishment complies with the provisions of
PC -11 and the zoning code, including any specific condition required for the
establishment in the district in which it is located for the following reasons:
a. The PC -11 designates the site for restaurant use, subject to the approval
of a use permit.
b. The project generally meets the restaurant development standards of the
Zoning Code to the maximum extent possible given the existing site
conditions, related to the specific requirements for site requirements,
building setbacks, parking and traffic circulation, walls, landscaping,
exterior illumination, underground utilities, and supply and refuse storage.
WHEREAS, the alcoholic beverage service complies with the purpose and intent
of Chapter 20.89 of the Municipal Code (Alcoholic Beverage Outlets Ordinance) for the
following reasons:
1. The use has been conditioned to minimize the impacts associated with the sale
of alcoholic beverages. The plans, as conditioned, meet the design and
development standards for alcoholic sales.
2. The convenience of the public can be served by the sale of desired beverages in
conjunction with a full - service, fine dining restaurant that is complementary to the
surrounding uses within airport area. Alcohol service is typical and expected by
the public in a full - service, fine dining restaurant setting.
3. The crime rate in the police reporting district and adjacent reporting districts is
not likely to increase as a result of the proposed restaurant use since no live
entertainment or dancing activities are part of the project.
t5
4. The number of alcohol licenses
districts is not significantly high
and the lack of population.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 3 of 9
within the report districts and adjacent reporting
given the nature of the land uses in the district
5. The percentage of alcohol - related arrests in the police reporting district in which
the project is proposed is lower than the percentage citywide. Accessory on -site
consumption of alcoholic beverages is not expected to increase alcoholic related
crime in the opinion of the Police Department.
WHEREAS, a traffic study for the project has been prepared and approved in
compliance with Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code for the following reasons:
A traffic study, entitled Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis for a Restaurant
Project in Newport Beach (Katz, Okitsu & Associates, July 26, 2005), was
prepared for the project in compliance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code.
The proposed 7,072 square foot restaurant building is expected to generate 684
new daily trips with 7 new trips during the morning, and 53 new trips during the
evening peak hour.
3. The traffic study indicated that the project will not increase traffic at seven (7) of
the nine (9) primary intersections by one percent (1 %) and therefore no impact is
predicted.
4. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis determined that the project will not
cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any of the two
(2) primary intersections where there will be an increase of more than one
percent (1 %) in traffic volume and, therefore, no mitigation is required.
5. Construction of the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of this
approval or the approval of a new traffic study will be required.
WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This exemption
allows for the operation, repair, maintenance and minor alteration of existing buildings. The
project consists of interior modifications of an existing commercial building.
Is
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paoe , of 9
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves
Use Permit No. 2005 -004 and Traffic Study No. 2005 -003, subject to the Conditions set
forth in Exhibit °A."
Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the
adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk
in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2005.
M
M
Michael Toerge, Chairman
Barry Eaton, Secretary
AYES:
NOES:
(I
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paae 5 of 9
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -004
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan
and floor plans dated July 12, 2005.
2. Use Permit No. 2005 -004 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from
the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted.
3. Pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the tentative improvements for the
proposed restaurant shall be completed no more than 60 months from the date of
final approval of Traffic Study No. 2005 -003.
4. Hours of operation shall be confined to 11:00 AM to 12:00 AM, seven days a
week.
5. A minimum of one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area"
shall be provided for the subject restaurant.
6. The restaurant and associated parking spaces shall comply with the California
Building Code requirements for building issues and accessibility.
7. All owners, managers and employees selling alcoholic beverages shall undergo
and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods
and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. The certified program must meet the
standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage
Service or other certifying/licensing body, which the State may designate. The
establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days
of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Records of each owner's,
manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified
training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented
upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach within sixty (60)
days upon hiring.
8. There shall be no live entertainment and/or dancing at any time.
9. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any
future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by
either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
10.The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this
Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit
upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit
causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the community.
J
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 6 of 9
11. This Use Permit shall be terminated if the operation is no longer maintained as a
"bona fide public eating place" as defined by the California Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control.
12. Full menu food service shall be available for ordering at all times that the
restaurant establishment is open for business.
13.A grease interceptor of adequate size is required in association with food
preparation activities.
14. Strict adherence to maximum occupancy limits of is required. Prior to the final
building permits, the location of maximum occupancy postings in the building
shall be inspected and approved by the Building Department or Fire Department
to ensure the location is readily visible to employees, patrons and public safety
personnel.
15. The alcoholic beverage outlet operator shall take reasonable steps to discourage
and correct objectionable conditions that constitute a nuisance in parking areas,
sidewalks and areas surrounding the alcoholic beverage outlet and adjacent
properties during business hours, if directly related to the patrons of the subject
alcoholic beverage outlet. If the operator fails to discourage or correct nuisances,
the Planning Commission may review, modify or revoke this Use Permit in
accordance with Chapter 20.96 of the Zoning Code.
16.The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of
Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be a Type 47 for full alcohol service for on -site
consumption only, and only in conjunction with the service of food as the
principal use of the facility. The sale of alcoholic beverages is prohibited for off -
site consumption. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject
to the approval of an amendment to this application and may require the approval
of the Planning Commission.
17.The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material
violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for
revocation of this permit.
18.A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside
the normal operational characteristics of this restaurant business that would
attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of
on -site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport
Beach Municipal Code to require such permits.
19.Any event or activity staged by an outside promoter or entity, where the
restaurant owner or his employees or representatives share in any profits, or pay
any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon
money collected as a door charge, cover charge or any other form of admission
charge, including minimum drink orders or sale of drinks is prohibited.
Iq
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paae 7 of 9
20.The approval of this Use Permit does not permit the premises to operate as a
bar, tavern, cocktail lounge or nightclub.
21. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise
generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall
comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for
the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher. If the ambient
noise level is higher, noise from the use shall not exceed the ambient noise level.
22. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the
licensed premises under the control of the license.
23. No "happy hour' type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be
allowed except when served in conjunction with food ordered from the full service
menu.
24.The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales
of food during the same period. The licensee shall maintain records that reflect
separately the gross sale of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of
the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a
quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department on demand.
25.There shall be no on -site radio, television, video, film or other electronic media
broadcasts, including recordings for the broadcast at a later time, which include
the service of alcoholic beverages, without first obtaining an approved Special
Event Permit as issued by the City of Newport Beach.
26. Sales, delivery and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be restricted to and
within the confines of the building and sales or delivery of alcoholic beverages
through any pass- through window is prohibited.
27.There shall be no exterior advertising or signs of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the
availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or
Between the hours
Between the hours
of TOOAM and
of 10:OOPM and
10:OOPM
7:OOAM
Location
Interior
Exterior
Interior
Exterior
Residential Property
45dBA
55dBA
40dBA
50dGA
Residential Property located
within 100 feet of a commercial
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
50dBA
property
Mixed Use Property
45dBA
60clBA
45dBA
50dBA
Commercial Property
N/A
65dBA
N/A
60dBA
22. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the
licensed premises under the control of the license.
23. No "happy hour' type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be
allowed except when served in conjunction with food ordered from the full service
menu.
24.The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales
of food during the same period. The licensee shall maintain records that reflect
separately the gross sale of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of
the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a
quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department on demand.
25.There shall be no on -site radio, television, video, film or other electronic media
broadcasts, including recordings for the broadcast at a later time, which include
the service of alcoholic beverages, without first obtaining an approved Special
Event Permit as issued by the City of Newport Beach.
26. Sales, delivery and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be restricted to and
within the confines of the building and sales or delivery of alcoholic beverages
through any pass- through window is prohibited.
27.There shall be no exterior advertising or signs of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the
availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 8 of 9
signs that are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this
condition.
28. Upon completion of private improvement work, any existing public improvements
surrounding the development site damaged by the private work shall be
reconstructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The extent of such remedial
work which could include sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway approaches, street
pavement, etc. shall be made at the discretion of the Public Works Department.
29. Provisions shall be made for retaining on -site non -storm runoff on -site. Due to the
site's irregular configuration and to take advantage of increased economy, the
applicant may want to arrange with the neighboring property owners to install
bottomless trench drains on the private side of the property lines across the width of
the driveways.
30.The existing weep holes along the easterly and northerly planters shall be
plugged.
31.The parking layout shall comply with City Standard STD - 805 -L. The parking
layout and ADA path of travel shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
Engineer.
32.A kitchen suppression system shall be installed, altered, or replaced to meet
UL300 standards, subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department.
33.A 5 year certification of the fire sprinkler system shall be submitted for the review
and approval of the Fire Department.
34.AII employees shall park on -site.
35. Storage outside of the building in the front, side or at the rear of the property shall
be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure.
36.The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are
maintained to control odors, which may include the provision of fully self -
contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if
deemed necessary by the Planning Department. Cleaning and maintenance of
trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14,
including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements).
Additionally, provisions shall be made to prevent debris and pollution runoff from
tracking onto the public right -of -way.
37.A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment with
minimum useable area dimensions of 36- inches wide, 36- inches deep and 72-
inches high, shall be provided and the area shall drain directly into the sewer
system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Director and Public Works
Director in conjunction with the approval of an alternative drainage plan.
a�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paae 9 of 9
38. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by the
Planning Director, and may require an amendment to this use permit.
39.AII deliveries shall be made on -site.
40. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash
enclosure (three walls and a gate), or otherwise screened from view of
neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection
agencies. The trash dumpsters shall have a top which shall remain closed at all
times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection
agency.
CM
EXHIBIT 2
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
A3
Chapter 15.40
TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE*
Sections:
15.40.010
Findings.
15.40.020
Objectives.
15.40.030
Standards for Approval -
Findings— Exemptions.
15.40.035
Expiration.
15.40.040
Definitions.
15.40.050
Procedures.
15.40.060
Hearings— Notice.
15.40.070
Appeal— Review.
15.40.075
Proportionality.
15.40.080
Severability.
* Prior ordinance history: Ords. 1765, 1777, 1787, 85 -30, W20 am
942.
15.40.010 Findings.
A. The phasing of development with circulation
system improvements to accommodate project -gen-
erated traffic is important to maintaining the high
quality of the residential and commercial neighbor -
hoods in Newport Beach;
B. Traffic congestion caused by inadequate
phasing of circulation improvements and develop-
ment is harmful to the public health, safety and
general welfare due to the potential for delays in
emergency response, air quality impacts and an
overall reduction in the quality of life.
C. While some development may be important
to the continued vitality of the local economy, the
City should continue to require mitigation of traffic
impacts by project proponents to ensure the circula-
tion system functions as planned;
D. Circulation system improvements should not
alter the character of neighborhoods or result in the
construction of streets and highways which expand
the capacity of the roadway system beyond levels
proposed in the circulation element;
E. This chapter is consistent with the authority
of a public entity to ensure that project proponents
make or fund improvements that increase the capaci-
569
15.40.010
ty of the circulation system to accommodate project -
generated traffic. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.020 Objectives.
The City Council has adopted this chapter to
achieve the following objectives:
A. To provide a uniform method of analyzing
and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that
generate a substantial number of average daily trips
and/or trips during the morning or evening peak
hour period;
B. To identify the specific and near -term impacts
of project traffic as well as circulation system im-
provements that will accommodate project traffic
and ensure that development is phased with identi-
fied circulation system improvements;
C. To ensure that project proponents, as condi-
tions of approval pursuant to this chapter, make or
fund circulation system improvements that mitigate
the specific impacts of project traffic on primary
intersections at or near the time the project is ready
for occupancy; and
D. To provide a mechanism for ensuring that a
project proponent's cost of complying with traffic
related conditions of project approval is roughly
proportional to project impacts. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1
(part), 1999)
15A0.030 Standards for Approval-
Findings--Exemptions.
A. Standards for Approval. Unless a project is
exempt as provided in subsection (C), no building,
grading or related permit shall be issued for any
project until the project has been approved pursuant
to this chapter (approved). A project shall be ap-
proved only if the Planning Commission, or the City
Council on review or appeal, finds:
L That a traffic study for the project has been
prepared in compliance with this chapter and Ap-
pendix A; .
2. That, based on the weight of the evidence in
the administrative record, including the traffic study,
one of the findings for approval in subsection (B)
can be made; and
(Ne.rwt aenh 9-99)
A�
IL
15.40.030
3. That the project proponent has agreed to
make or fund the improvements, or make the contri-
butions, that are necessary to make the findings for
approval and to comply with all conditions of ap-
proval.
B. Findings for Approval. No project shall be
approved pursuant to this chapter unless the Plan-
ning Commission, or the City Council on review or
appeal, finds that:
1. Construction of the project will be completed
within sixty (60) months of project approval; and:
a. The project will neither cause nor make
worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at
any impacted primary intersection, or
b. The project including circulation improve-
ments that the project proponent is required to make
and/or fund, pursuant to a reimbursement program
or otherwise, will neither cause nor make worse an
unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impact-
ed primary intersection, or
c. The project trips will cause or make worse an
unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one or more
impacted primary intersection(s) but the project
proponent is required to construct and/or fund, pur-
suant to a reimbursement program or otherwise,
circulation improvements, or make contributions,
such that:
(1) The project trips will not cause or make
worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at
any impacted primary intersection for which there
is a feasible improvement, and
(2) The benefits resulting from circulation im-
provements I constructed or funded by, or contribu-
tions to the preparation or implementation of a
traffic mitigation study made by, the project pro-
ponent outweigh the adverse impact of project trips
at any impacted primary intersection for which there
is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if
implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section
15.40.030 (B)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse im-
pacts and benefits, only the following improvements
and/or contributions shall be considered with the
greatest weight accorded to the improvements and/or
contributions described in subparagraphs (a) and (b)
below:
(a) Contributions to the preparation of, and/or
implementation of some or all of the recommenda-
tions in, a traffic mitigation study related to an
impacted primary intersection that is initiated or
approved by the City Council,
(b) Improvements, if any, that mitigate the im-
pact of project trips at any impacted primary inter-
section for which there is (are) no feasible improve -
ment(s) that, if implemented, would satisfy the
provisions of Section 15.40.030(Bxl)(b),
(c) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of
project trips on any impacted primary intersection
in the vicinity of the project,
(d) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of
project trips on any impacted primary intersection
operating, or projected to operate, at or above 0.80
ICU, or
d. The project complies with (1)(b) upon the
completion of one or more circulation improve-
ments; and:
(1) The time and/or funding necessary to.com-
plete the improvement(s) is (are) not roughly pro-
portional to the impacts of project - generated trips,
and
(2) There is a strong likelihood the improve-
ments) will be completed within forty-eight (48)
months from the date the project and traffic study
are considered by the Planning Commission, or City
Council on review or appeal. This finding shall not
be made unless, on or before the date of approval,
a conceptual plan for each improvement has been
prepared in sufficient detail to permit estimation of
cost .and. funding sources for the . improvement(s);
the improvement(s) is (are) consistent with the cir-
culation element or appropriate amendments have
been initiated; an account has been established to
receive all funds and contributions necessary to
construct the improvement(s) and the improvement
is identified as one to be constructed pursuant to the
five year capital improvement plan and as specified
in Appendix A, and
(3) The project proponent pays a fee to fund
construction of the improvement(s). The fee shall be
calculated by multiplying the estimated cost of the
improvement(s) by a fraction. The fraction shall be
(Newpme Beach 9-m 570
A5
lit
calculated by dividing the "effective capacity de-
crease".
in the impacted primary intersection attrib-
utable to project trips by the "effective capacity
increase" in the impacted primary intersection that
is attributable to the improvement. The terms "effec-
tive capacity increase" and "effective capacity de-
crease" shall be calculated in accordance with the
provisions of Appendix A. Or:
2. The project is a Comprehensive Phased Land
Use Development and Circulation System Improve-
ment Plan with construction of all phases not antici-
pated robe complete within sixty (60) months of
project approval; and
a.. The project is subject to a development
agreement which requires the construction of, or
contributions to, circulation improvements early in
the development phasing program, and
b. The traffic study contains sufficient data and
analysis to determine if that portion of the project
reasonably expected to be constructed and ready for
occupancy within sixty (60) months of project ap-
proval satisfies the provisions of subsections
(13)(1)(a) or (13)(1)(b), and
c. The Land Use and Circulation Elements of
the General Plan are not made inconsistent by the
impact of project trips (including circulation im-
provements designed to mitigate the impacts of
project trips) when added to the trips resulting from
development anticipated to occur within the City
based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance, and
d. The project is required, during the sixty (60)
month period immediately after approval, to con-
struct circulation irpprovemetn(s) such that:
(1) Project trips will not cause or make worse an
unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impact-
ed primary intersection for which there is a feasible
improvement,
(2) The benefits resulting from circulation im-
provements constructed or funded by, or contribu-
tions to the preparation or implementation of a
traffic mitigation study made by, the project pro-
ponent outweigh the adverse impact of project trips
at any impacted primary intersection for which there
is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if
571
15.40.030
implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section
15.40.030 (15)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse im-
pacts and benefits, only'the following improvements
and/or contributions sliall be considered with the
greatest weight accorded to the improvements and/or
contributions described in subparagraphs (a) or (b):
(a) Contributions to the preparation of, and/or
implementation of some or all of the recommenda-
tions in, a traffic mitigation study related to an
impacted primary intersection that is 'initiated or
approved by the City Council,
(b) Improvements, if any, that mitigate the im-
pact of project trips at any impacted primary inter-
section for which there is (are) no feasible improve -
ment(s) that, if implemented, would fully satisfy the
provisions of Section 15.40.030 (B)(l)(b),
(c) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of
project trips on any impacted primary intersection
in the vicinity of the project,
(d) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of
project trips on any impacted primary intersection
operating, or projected to operate, at or above 0.80
ICU; and
.3. The Planning Commission, or City Council
on review or appeal finds, by the affirmative vote
of five - sevenths (5/7) of the members eligible to
vote, that this chapter is inapplicable to the project
because the project will result in benefits that out-
weigh the project's anticipated negative impact on
the circulation system;
C. Exemptions. The following projects are ex-
empt from the provisions of this chapter:
1. Any project that generates no more than three
hundred (300) average daily. trips. Tbis exception
shall not apply to individual projects on the same
parcel or parcels of property, such as changes in
land use or increases in floor area, that in any twen-
ty .four (24) month period cumulatively generate
more than three hundred (300) average daily trips;
2. Any project that, during any morning or
evening peak hour period, does not increase trips by
one percent or more on any leg of any primary
intersection;
3. Any project that meets all of the following
criteria:
ftwpun Brach 11 -9)
15.40.030
a. The project would be constructed on property
within the sphere of influence of the City of New-
port Beach and that is within the jurisdiction of the
County of Orange or an adjacent city as of the
effective date of this ordinance; and
b. The project is subject to a vesting tentative
or parcel map, development agreement; pre-annex-
ation agreement and/or other legal document that
vests the right of the property owner to construct the
project in the County or adjacent city; and
c. The property owner enters into a development
agreement, pre - annexation agreement, or similar
agreement with the City of Newport Beach:
(1) That establishes the average daily trips gener-
ated by the project ("baseline "),
(2) That requires the property owner to comply
with this chapter prior to the issuance of any permit
for development that would, in any twenty-four (24)
month period, generate more than three hundred
(300) average daily trips above the baseline for the
project, and
(3) That makes this chapter applicable to the
project immediately upon annexation;
d. The City Council determines, prior to annex-
ation, that the environmental document prepared for
the project fully complies with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines. (Ord. 99-17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.035 Expiration.
A. The Planning Commission, or City Council
on review or appeal, shall establish a specific date
on which the approval of the project shall expire
(expiration date). In no event shall the expiration
date be less than twenty-four (24) months from the
date of approval. The initial expiration date for
projects other than those described in Section
15.40.030(3)(2) shall be no more than sixty (60)
months from the date of approval unless subsequent
approval is required from another public agency. In
the event the project requires approval from another
public agency subsequent to approval pursuant to
this chapter, the date of approval shall be the date
of the action taken by the last public agency to
consider the project. Approval pursuant to this
chapter shall terminate on the expiration date unless
abuildimg permit has been issued for the project and
construction has commenced pursuant to that permit
prior to the expiration date or the expiration date has
been extended pursuant to subsection (C).
B. Any project approved pursuant to this chapter
shall be considered a "committed project" until the
expiration date, if any, or until the final certificate
of occupancy has been issued if construction has
commenced on a portion or a phase of the project.
All trips generated by each committed project shall
be included in all subsequent traffic studies con-
ducted pursuant to this chapter as provided in ap-
pendix A. Committed projects shall be administered
in accordance with Appendix A.
C. The Planning Commission or City Council,
may, subsequent to the date of approval, extend the
expiration date for any project.
D. The Planning Director and Traffic Manager
shall, at least annually, monitor the progress of each
project to ensure compliance with this chapter. (Ord.
99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.040 Defrnitions.
The following terms used in this chapter shall
have the meaning indicated below:
"Circulation element" means the Circulation Ele-
ment of the General Plan of the City of Newport
Beach as amended from time to time.
"Circulation improvement(s)" or "improve -
ment(s)" means a modification to a primary intersec-
tion (possibly including a related roadway link) that
increases the capacity of the primary intersection.
"Date of approval' means the date the project is
approved, pursuant to this chapter, by the Planning
Commission or City Council on review or appeal.
"Feasible improvement" means a circulation
improvement that:
1. Is not inconsistent with the Circulation Ele-
ment at the date of approval and has not been iden-
tified as infeasible by the City Council at a public
hearing to initiate or approve a traffic mitigation
study; or
2_ Is not inconsistent with any amendment(s) to
the Circulation Element initiated and approved in
conjunction with the project and is required to be
(Neon aesrh 11-99) 572
� 1
completed by the project proponent and/or the City
within the time frames required by this chapter.
"ICU" means the intersection capacity utilization
computed in accordance with standard traffic engi-
neering principles and the procedures outlined in
.Appendix A.
"Impacted primary intersection" means any pri-
mary intersection where project trips increase the
volume of traffic on any leg by one percent (1%) or
more during any peak hour period.
"Level of traffic service" means the letter as-
signed to a range of ICUs in accordance with Ap-
pendix A.
"Members eligible to vote ".means all members
of the Planning Commission, or the City Council on
review or appeal, lawfully holding office except
those members disqualified from voting due to a
conflict of interest
"NBTAM" means the most current City Council
approved traffic analysis model for the City of New-
port Beach.
"Peak hour period" means the four consecutive
fifteen (15) minute periods between seven a.m. and
nine am. (morning) and the four consecutive fifteen
(15) minute periods between four p.m. and six p.m.
(evening) with the highest traffic volumes (for each
primary intersection) as determined by the field
counts required by Appendix A.
"Primary intersection" means each intersection
identified ,in Appendix B and, with respect to indi-
vidual projects, any additional intersection selected
by the Traffic Manager pursuant to Section
15.40.050(B)(1).
"Project" means "project' as defined in the Cali-
fornia Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code § 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines, and
relevant decisional law without regard to whether
any environmental document is required for the
project. The term "project" shall also mean any
application for a building or grading permit for
development that would generate more than three
hundred (300) average daily trips.
"Traffic engineer" means the traffic engineer
retained by the City to prepare the traffic study.
573
�tt-t
"Traffic Manager" means the person employed by
the City who occupies the position of Traffic and
Development Services Manager or similar position.
"Traffic mitigation study" means a study designed
to evaluate and recommend a plan to mitigate the
impact of an actual or potential unsatisfactory level
of traffic service at any primary intersection on
traffic volumes in any residential neighborhood in
the vicinity of that primary intersection.
"Traffic study" means the study prepared by the
traffic engineer in strict compliance with this chapter
including Appendix A.
"Unsatisfactory level of service" means a level of
service at a primary intersection, which is worse
than level of service "D" (.90 ICU), during any
morning or evening peak hour period as determined
in accordance with Appendix A. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1
(part), 1999)
15.40.050 Procedures.
A. The Planning Commission shall determine
compliance with this chapter based on the traffic
study for the project, information from staff and/or
the traffic engineer, and the entire record of the
proceedings conducted with regard to the project.
The traffic study shall be prepared in compliance
with Appendix A.
B. Subject to review by the Planning Commis-
sion, or City Council on review or appeal; the traffic
manager, in the exercise of his/her professional
discretion, shall:
1. Directthe preparation of each traffic study by
a traffic engineer retained by the City and, in com-
pliance with Appendix A, determine those primary
intersections (or other intersections if the impact of
project traffic on primary intersections may not be
representative) that may be impacted by project
trips;
2. Ensure that each traffic study is prepared in
compliance with the methodology described in Ap-
pendix A and independently evaluate the conclu-
sions of the traffic engineer;
3. Make recommendations to the Planning Com-
mission and/or City Council with respect to the
criteria for evaluating trip reduction measures, the
ftwpu%aexh 9-M
r
.
15.40.050
appropriate trip generation rates of land uses, and
the criteria for distributing project trips to ensure
that each traffic study reflects modem transportation
engineering practice.
C. Any finding or decision of the Planning Com-
mission with respect to any project that also requires
discretionary action on the part of the City Council,
such as an amendment to the general plan or zoning
ordinance, shall be deemed an advisory action. In
such cases the City Council shall take any action
required by this chapter at the same date and time
that the City Council considers the other discretion-
ary approvals required by the project.
D. The application for any building, grading or
other permit for any project subject to this chapter
shall be approved, conditionally approved or denied
within one year from the date on which the applica-
tion is deemed complete. In the event action is not
taken on an application within one year, the project
shall be deemed approved provided it is consistent
with the general plan and zoning ordinance of the
City of Newport Beach.
E. A fee as established by resolution of the City
Council to defray the expenses of administering this
chapter shall accompany the application for a traffic
study. The application for a traffic study shall be
submitted in compliance with Appendix A.
F The City Council shall conduct a noticed
public hearing prior to initiating or approving any
traffic mitigation study and identifying as infeasible
any improvement at or near any primary intersec-
tion;
G. The City Council may establish reimburse-
ment programs to ensure that multiple projects af-
fecting the same primary intersection pay for im-
provements in proportion to their respective impacts.
The reimbursement programs shall be developed and
administered in compliance with Appendix A. (Ord.
99 -17 $ 1 (part), 1999)
15.40:060 Hearings — Notice.
A. The Planning Commission, and the City
Council on appeal or review, shall hold a public
hearing on any project pursuant to this chapter. The
public hearing on the traffic study may be consoli-
(Newpo Bum 9 -99)
574.
dated with other hearings required by the project
The hearing shall be noticed in the maaner provided
in Section 20.91.030(C). of the Newport Beach Mu-
nicipal Code or any successor provision.
B. All findings required or provided for in this
chapter shall be in writing and supported by the
weight of the evidence in the entire administrative
record for the project including the traffic study.
(Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.070 Appeal — Review.
A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter,
any Planning Commission decision to approve a
project shall be final unless there is an appeal by the
project proponent or any interested person. The
appeal shall be initiated and conducted pursuant to
the procedures in Chapter 20.95 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code or any successor provision;
B. The City Council shall have a right of review
as specified in Chapter 20.95 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code or any successor provision;
C. The City Council shall be subject to the same
requirements as the Planning Commission relative
to decisions and findings required by this chapter.
(Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999)
15.40.075 Proportionality.
A. In no event shall the Planning Commission
or City Council on review or appeal:
1. Impose any traffic related condition or condi-
tions on the approval of a project that would require
the project proponent to construct one or more cir-
culation improvement(s) if the total cost of traffic
related conditions and/or improvements is not
roughly proportional to the impact of project trips;
or
2. Impose any traffic related condition or condi-
tions on the approval of a project which would
require the payment of fees or costs that are not
roughly proportional to the impact of project trips.
B. The provisions of this chapter are intended to
address the specific and, in most cases, near term
impacts of project trips on impacted primary inter-
sections rather than the overall impact of project
traffic on the circulation system. Chapter 15.38 of
0
the Newport Beach Municipal Code is intended to
address the overall impact of development on the
circulation system. Conditions or fees imposed
pursuant.to this chapter shall be in addition to fees
required pursuant to Chapter 15.38 except as other-
wise provided in Chapter 15.38.
C. The provisions of this section shall not limit
or restrict the authority of the Planning Commission,
or City Council on review or appeal, to impose on
any project all feasible mitigation measures pursuant
to the provisions of applicable law, including CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines. I
D. The provisions of this section shall not re-
quire approval of any project if the Planning Com-
mission, or City Council on review or appeal, is
unable to make the findings required for approval
pursuant to this chapter.
E. The provisions of this section shall not re-
quire approval of any project which the Planning
Commission is authorized to deny or modify pursu-
ant to any State law or City ordinance, resolution or
plan.
F. The provisions of this section shall not limit
or restrict the authority of the Planning Commission,
or City Council. on review or appeal, to impose
conditions, fees, exaction or dedications on a project
pursuant to:
1. A development agreement;
2. A reimbursement agreement, a reimbursement
program, or any agreement acceptable to the project
proponent;
3. The consent of the project proponent; or
4. An amendment to the land use element or
zoning ordinance of the City of Newport Beach that
is required for approval of the project. (Ord. 99 -17
§ 1 (part), 1999)
15A0.080 Severability.
If all or a portion of any section or subsection of
this chapter is declared invalid, all of the provisions
of this chapter that have not been declared invalid
shall be considered valid and in full force and ef-
fect. (Ord. 99 -17 § I (part), 1999)
574-1
15.40.075
(MMPM Beach 9A9)
1. General.
IT, reVIT.
These Administrative Procedures (Procedures) apply to any Project for which Traffic Study is required by
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO).
2. Application.
a. The proponent of any Project subject to the TPO shall:
i. file an application for a Traffic Study;
ii. pay the required fees; and
iii. sign an agreement to pay all costs related to the Traffic Study.
b_ The application shall be accompanied by the following information:
i. A complete description of the Project including the total amount of floor area to be constructed
and the amount of floor area allocated to each proposed land use;
ii. A Project site plan that depicts the location and intensity of proposed development; the location
of points of ingress and egress, and the location of parking lots or structures;
iii. Any proposed Project phasing;
iv. Any trip reduction measure proposed by the Project proponent;
v. Any information, study or report that supports any request by the Project proponent to use trip
generation rates that differ from those used in the NBTAM or the most current version of the 1TE
Manual or the SANDAG Manual; and
vi. Any other information that, in the opinion of the Traffic .Manager, is necessary to properly
evaluate the traffic impacts of the Project or the Circulation System Improvements that could
mitigate those traffic impacts.
3. Traffic Study Assumptions.
a. The definitions in Section 15.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be applicable to these
Procedures.
(Newpm Beet, v -M
574-2
7
b. ICU calculations shall assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for both
through and turn lanes. No factor for yellow time shall be included in the lane capacity assumptions.
ICU calculations shall be made by calculating the volume to capacity ratios for each movement to three
decimal places, and then adding the critical movements to obtain an ICU with three decimal places.
The increase in the ICU attributable to Project trips shall be calculated to three decimal places. The
ICU shall then be rounded to two decimal places. For example, an ICU of .904 shall be rounded to
.90 and an ICU of .905 shall be rounded to .91.
c. Circulation System Improvements may be included in the Traffic Study for a Project provided that
the Traffic Manager determines-
i. The Improvement will be completed no more than one year after completion of the Project or
Project phase for which the Traffic Study is being performed; and
ii. The Improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined in
sufficiently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis; or
iv. The design of the Improvement is consistent with standard City design criteria or has been
approved by the City Council, or other public entity with jurisdiction over the Improvement, and
is defined in sufficiently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis.
d. Traffic volumes shall be based on estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after
completion of the Project, or that portion of the Project for which the Traffic Study is being performed.
The intent of this Subsection is to ensure use of the most accurate information to estimate traffic
volumes one year after Project completion. Traffic volume estimates shall be based on:
i. The most current field counts for each Primary Intersection with counts taken on weekdays during
the morning and evening Peak Hour Period between February 1 and May 31;
ii. Traffic generated by Committed Projects as determined in accordance with the TPO and these
Procedures
vi. Projects reasonably expected to be complete within the one year after Project completion and
which are located in the City of Newport Beach or its sphere of influence;
iv. Increases in regional traffic anticipated to occur within one year after Project completion as
projected in the NBTAM or other accepted sources of future Orange County traffic growth; and
Y. Other information customarily used by Traffic Engineers to accurately estimate future traffic
volumes.
e. For purposes of the traffic analysis of Circulation System Improvements, seventy percent (70%) of
the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vphg for each full traffic
lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of any Circulation System Improvement, traffic volume counts
shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future Traffic Studies.
574 -3 urea rim v-")
3a-
L Trip generation rates for the land uses contemplated by the Project shall be based on standard trip
generation values utilized in NBTAM except as provided in this Subsection. The Traffic Engineer may,
with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, use trip generation rates other than as specified in the
NBTAM when NBTAM hip generation rates are based on limited information or study and there is
a valid study of the trip generation rate of a similar land use that supports a different rate.
g. The Traffic Engineer may, with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, reduce trip generation rates
for some or all of the land uses contemplated by the Project based on specific trip reduction measures
when:
The Project proponent proposes in writing and prior to commencement of the Traffic Study,
specific and permanent measures that will reduce Peak Hour Period trips generated by the Project;
and
ii. The Traffic Manager and Traffic Engineer, in the exercise of their best professional judgment,
each determine that the proposed measure(s) will reduce Peak Hour Period Project trips and the
specific reduction in Project trips that can reasonably be expected; and
iii. The Project proponent provides the City with written assurance that the proposed trip generation
reduction measures) will be permanently implemented. The Project proponent must consent to
make permanent implementation of the measure(s) a condition to the approval of the Project, and
the measure(s) shall be made a condition of the Project by the Planning Commission or City
Council on review or appeal.
h. In determining Project trips, credit shall be given for existing uses on the Project site. Credit shall be
given based on the trip generation rates in the NBTAM. In the alternative, the Traffic Manager may,
in the exercise of his/her professional judgment, authorize the use of trip generation rates in the TTE
Manual, SANDAG Manual, or on the basis of actual site traffic counts. In the event the Project site
has not been used for any purpose for a period of one (1) year prior to the filing of an application for
a Traffic Study, credit shall be limited to trips generated by the last known land use, if any, that could
be resumed with no discretionary approval. For any land use that is not active as of the date of the
application for Traffic Study, the Project proponent shall have the burden of establishing that the use
was in operation during the previous one (1) year period.
The purpose of this Paragraph is to ensure that trips that would be generated upon completion of a
Project approved pursuant to the TPO are incorporated into any subsequent Traffic Study. conducted
prior to completion .of the Project and/or post - Project field counts specified in Section Idd. A
Committed Project is one that has been approved pursuant to the TPO, requires no further discretionary
approval by the City, and has received, or is entitled to receive, a building or grading permit for
construction of the Project or one or more phases of the Project. In preparing a Traffic Study, trips
generated by Committed Projects shall be included subject to the following:
All trips generated by each Committed Project or that portion or phase of the Committed Project
for which no certificate of occupancy has been issued shall be included in any Traffic Study
conducted prior to the Expiration Date of that Committed Project;
(NewpW Bea b 9-99)
574-4
5
ii. In the event a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for one or more phases of a
Committed Project, all trips shall be included in subsequent Traffic Studies until completion of
the first field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(i) subsequent to the date on which the final
certificate of occupancy was issued. Subsequent to completion of the field counts, those trips
generated by phases of the Committed Project that have received a final certificate of occupancy
shall no longer be included in subsequent Traffic Studies.
iii. The Traffic Manager and Planning Director shall maintain a list of Committed Projects and, at
least annually, update the list to reflect new Approvals pursuant to the TPO as well as completion
of all or a portion of each Committed Project, A Committed Project shall not be removed from
the Committed Project list -until a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for all phases
and the field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(i) have been taken subsequent to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy.
iv. The total trips generated by Committed Projects shall be reduced by twenty percent (20 %) to
account for the interaction of Committed Project trips.
j. For purposes of Chapter 15.40 and these Procedures, the following Levels of Traffic Service ranges
shall apply:
A
.00—.60 ICU
B
.61-30 ICU
C
.71—.80 ICU
D
.81—.90 ICU
E
.91 -1.00 ICU
F
Above 1.00 ICU
4. Initial Traffic Study Procedures.
a. The Traffic Manager shall retain a qualified Traffic Engineer pursuant to contract with the City to
prepare a Traffic Study for the Project in compliance with the TPO and the methodology specified
in these Procedures.
b. The Traffic Manager shall advise the Traffic Engineer of the methodology and assumptions required
by these Procedures and provide the Traffic Engineer with a copy of the TPO and these Procedures.
c. The Traffic Manager, in consultation with the Traffic Engineer and in accordance with accepted traffic
engineering standards and principles, shall determine the most probable manner in which Project Trips
will be distributed throughout the Circulation System. The determination of Project trip distribution
shall be consistent with:
i. the assumptions in NBTAM relative to the trip production and attraction characteristics of various
land uses; and
ii. previous trip distribution determinations for Projects of similar size and location; .
5745
(Newport Heath M9)
3 `
Trip distributions shall be in increments of 5% of Project Trips. In no event shall Project trips be removed
from any roadway on which a Primary Intersection is located except at a signalized intersection with
another roadway on which a Primary Intersection is located. The determination of Project trip distribution
shall, in all cases, reflect the most probable movement of Project trips throughout the Circulation System.
The Traffic Study shall clearly explain the rationale for the determination of Project trip distribution.
d. The Traffic Engineer shall determine if Project trips will increase traffic on any leg of any Primary
Intersection by one percent (1 %) or more during any Peak Hour Period one year after Project
completion.
e. In the event the Traffic Engineer determines that Project generated trips will not increase traffic by
one percent (I%) or more on any leg of any Primary Intersection during any morning or evening Peak
Hour Period one year after Project completion the analysis will be tern-dnated. In such event the Traffic
Study and worksheet shall be submitted to the Planning Commission with a recommendation that the
Project be determined exempt from the TPO pursuant to Section 15.40.030 C.2.
f. No mitigation shall be identified or required for any Primary Intersection unless Project trips increase
traffic on one or more of the legs of the intersection by one percent (1%) or more during any morning
or evening Peak Hour Period.
5. Traffic Study Methodoloay.
a. The Traffic Engineer, in preparing the Traffic Study, shall evaluate the impact of Project trips generated
from all proposed land uses based on the assumptions specified in Section 3 and the methodology
specified in this Section.
b. In the case of conversion of an existing structure to a more intense land use, the incremental increase
in trips generated by the Project shall be evaluated. In the event the uses within the existing structure
changed during the preceding twelve (12) months, the differential shall be calculated on the basis of
the prior use or uses with the highest trip generation rates according to the NBTAM (or ITE Manual
or SANDAG Manual as appropriate).
c. Project trips shall be distributed in accordance with the determination specified in Subparagraph 4c.
d. The following ICU calculations shall be performed for each Primary Intersection where; one year after
Project completion, Project generated trips will increase traffic by one percent (1%) or more on any
leg of the Primary Intersection during any morning and/or evening Peak Hour Period:
i. The existing ICU;
ii. The ICU, with Circulation System Improvements that will be in place within one year after Project
completion, based on all projected traffic including regional traffic increases and trips generated
by Committed Projects excluding Project generated trips; and
iii. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips;
(Newpon Bench 9 -99)
574 -6
35
iv. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips and any trip reduction measures approved by the Traffic
Manager;
v. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips and any mitigation resulting from Improvements;
vi. The ICU in (v) with trip reduction measures approved by the Traffic Manager.
e. The Traffic Study shall, for each Impacted Primary Intersection with an Unsatisfactory Level of Service
(ICU of .905 or more) that has been caused or made worse by Project generated trips, identify each
Feasible Improvement that could mitigate some or all of the impacts of Project trips. The Traffic Study
shall also determine the extent to which the Improvement provides additional capacity for critical
movements at the Impacted Primary Intersection in excess of the Project trips and any other information
relevant to the calculation of any fee required by the TPO.
f. The Traffic Study shall, for each Improvement identified pursuant to Subsection e., estimate the cost
of maldng the Improvement including the cost of property acquisition, design, and construction. The
Traffic Engineer may perform the cost estimate or, with the approval of the Traffic Manager, retain
a civil engineer or other qualified professional to prepare the cost estimates.
g. The determination of "effective capacity increase" and "effective capacity decrease" as described in
Section 15.40.030 B.l.d. shall be made as specified in this Subparagraph.
i. In determining the "effective capacity increase" attributable to any Improvement to any Primary
Intersection, the Traffic Engineer shall first calculate the ICU with existing, committed and
regional trips (Future W/O Project ICU). Then the ICU shall be calculated with existing,
committed and regional trips and the Improvement (Improved W/O Project ICU). The "effective
capacity increase" shall be determined by subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the
Future W/O Project ICU.
ii. In determining the "effective capacity decrease" attributable to Project trips the Traffic Engineer
shall first calculate the ICU of the Primary Intersection with existing, committed and regional
trips, Project trips and the improvement (Improved With Project ICU). The "effective capacity
decrease" shall be calculated by subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the Improved
With Project ICU.
iii. For example, if the Future W/O Project ICU is .92 and the Improved W/O Project ICU is .82
the "effective capacity increase" is 10. If the Improved W/O Project ICU is .82 and the Improved
ICU With Project ICU is .87 the "effective capacity decrease" is 5. Assuming the cost of the
Improvement is $100,000 the contribution of the Project would be $50,000 ($100,000 multiplied
by 5 /10).
h. The Traffic Study shall also provide the Planning commission with any additional information relevant
to the findings or analysis required by the TPO.
5747
Qdewpm Baeh 9-W
3(
6. Staff Analysis.
a. The Traffic Engineer shall transmit a draft Traffic Study to the Traffic Manager for review, comment
and correction. The Traffic Manager shall review the draft Traffic Study and submit corrections to the
Traffic Engineer within 15 days after receipt. The Traffic Engineer shall make the corrections within
ten (10) days of receipt and transmit the final Traffic Study to the Traffic Manager.
b. The Traffic Manager shall transmit the final Traffic Study to the Planning Department for presentation
to the Planning Commission.
7. Issuance of Permits.
The City shall not issue building, grading or other permits for a Project Approved pursuant to Section
15.40.030 B.l.b., 15.40.030 B. Le., or 15.40.030 B2. until each Improvement that has been assumed to
be in place for purposes of Project Approval, or is to be constructed or funded as a condition to Project
Approval, satisfies the following criteria:
a. The Improvement has been budgeted and committed for construction by or on behalf of the City; or
b. The State, County or other governmental agency making the Improvement has accepted bids for the
Project; or
c. The Improvement has been approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions and is to be
constructed by the Project proponent in conjunction with development of the Project or the Project
proponent has guaranteed construction of the Improvement through the posting of bonds or other form
of assurance.
8. Reimbursement Programs.
a. The City Council may establish Reimbursement Programs to ensure Project conditions are roughly
proportional to Project impacts and to facilitate the prompt construction of Improvements to mitigate
the impact of Project trips. A Reimbursement Program may be proposed by the City Manager to the
City Council whenever he/she becomes aware of the potential for multiple Projects to impact a Primary
Intersection and a Feasible Improvement may be required of one or more of the Projects because of
the impact of Project trips.
b. A Reimbursement Program shall have the following components:
i. Identification of the Feasible Improvement(s) including, without limitation, preliminary design
and cost estimates and the estimated date of completion of the Feasible Improvement(s);
ii. 'Calculation of the "effective capacity increase" attributable "to the Feasible Improvement(s);
iii. The amount of the cost of the Feasible Improvement for which the City or Project Proponent shall.
be entitled to reimbursement from subsequent or contemporaneous Projects;
(Newpon Beach 9-99)
574 -8
31
iv. The duration of the period during which Reimbursement shall be required of subsequent or
contemporaneous Projects.
9. Committed Improvements.
In the case of Projects Approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 B.l.d., the Improvement(s) assumed to
be completed within forty -eight (48) months after Project Approval shall be listed in the Five Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). The City Council shall not remove the Improvement(s) from the CIP unless
a different Improvement (Substitute Improvement) is identified and the Substitute Improvement will result
in reductions in the ICU at the Impacted Primary Intersection that equal or exceed the reduction(s) in ICU
at the Impacted Primary Intersection(s) that were assumed or projected when the Project was Approved.
574 -9
mOWPM sewn v-vsr.
S'�
APPENDIX B
PRIMARY INTERSECTIONS
Bayview and Bristol
Birch and Bristol North
Birch and Bristol
Campus and Bristol
Campus and Bristol North
Campus and Von Karrnan
Coast Highway and Avocado
Coast Highway and Bayside
Coast Highway and Dover/Bayshore
Coast Highway and Goldenrod
Coast Highway and Jamboree
Coast Highway and MacArthur
Coast Highway and Marguerite
Coast Highway and.Newport Center
Coast Highway and Newport Ramp
Coast Highway and Orange
Coast Highway and Poppy
Coast Highway and Riverside
Coast Highway and Tustin
Coast Highway and Superior
Dover and 16th
Dover and Westcliff
Irvine and Dover /19th
Irvine and Highland/20th
Irvine and Mesa
Irvine and Santiago /22nd
Irvine and University
Irvine and Westcliff /17th
(Newport Beach 9.99)
Jamboree and Bayview
Jamboree and Birch
Jamboree and Bison
Jamboree and Bristol North
Jamboree and Bristol
Jamboree and Campus
Jamboree and Ford/Eastbluff
Jamboree and MacArthur
Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills
Jamboree and Santa Barbara
Jamboree and University/Eastbluff
MacArthur and Birch
MacArthur and Bison
MacArthur and Campus
MacArthur and Ford/Bonita Canyon
MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills
MacArthur and San Miguel
MacArthur and Von Karman
Marguerite and San Joaquin Hills
Newport and Hospital
Newport and Via Lido
Newport and 32nd
Placentia and Superior
San Miguel and San Joaquin Hills
Santa Cruz and San Joaquin Hills
Santa Rosa and San Joaquin Hills
57410
3`1
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Analysis for a
Restaurant Project
in the
City of Newport Beach
July 26, 2005
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 644 -3323
Prepared by:
Katz, Okitsu & Associates .
17852 E. Seventeenth St, Suite 102
Tustin, CA 92780 -2142
Tel: (714) 573 -0317
Fax: (714) 573 -9534
Job No.: JA5662
qI
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
AN
Planning & Engineering
July 26, 2005
Katz, Okitsu & Associates is pleased to present the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis for a
proposed restaurant project in the City of Newport Beach. The project proposes to establish a
7,122 square foot restaurant at 4248 Martingale Way in the City of Newport Beach. The TPO
analysis has been prepared to meet the requirements of the City of Newport Beach.
The report is being submitted to you for review and processing. Please contact me if you have
any questions about the report, or if you need additional information to complete your
review. If there are any comments that require my response, or revisions required, please
notify me as soon as possible for prompt attention.
}
It has been a pleasure to prepare this study for the City of Newport Beach.
Sincerely,
a
Los Angeles Rock E. Miller, F.E.
323.260.4703 Principal QPpFESSfONq!
fax: 323.260.4705 �Q�(iQOG,r �• MI[!n'
No. 1139
San Diego j,icitiesWEWPORTBVA566Z MartingaleVA5662 Martingale TP0 Rev3.doc 2
619.683.2933 i=
s
* Xp.9 /30/0
fax: 619.683.7982
daT lRAFF \G
OF CAS -iFG�
Son Bemordinu
909.890.9693 rL
fax: 909.890.9694
4 a-
Ms. Iris Lee
17852 E. seventeenth St.
City of Newport Beach
Ste" 102
3300 Newport Boulevard
Tustin. cn
Newport Beach, CA 92663
92780 -2142
714.573.0317
Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis for a Restaurant Project
1 g y 1
fax: 714.573 -9534
in the City of Newport Beach
imaoc @katzoltitsu.com
www.katxokitsucom
Dear Ms. Lee:
Katz, Okitsu & Associates is pleased to present the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis for a
proposed restaurant project in the City of Newport Beach. The project proposes to establish a
7,122 square foot restaurant at 4248 Martingale Way in the City of Newport Beach. The TPO
analysis has been prepared to meet the requirements of the City of Newport Beach.
The report is being submitted to you for review and processing. Please contact me if you have
any questions about the report, or if you need additional information to complete your
review. If there are any comments that require my response, or revisions required, please
notify me as soon as possible for prompt attention.
}
It has been a pleasure to prepare this study for the City of Newport Beach.
Sincerely,
a
Los Angeles Rock E. Miller, F.E.
323.260.4703 Principal QPpFESSfONq!
fax: 323.260.4705 �Q�(iQOG,r �• MI[!n'
No. 1139
San Diego j,icitiesWEWPORTBVA566Z MartingaleVA5662 Martingale TP0 Rev3.doc 2
619.683.2933 i=
s
* Xp.9 /30/0
fax: 619.683.7982
daT lRAFF \G
OF CAS -iFG�
Son Bemordinu
909.890.9693 rL
fax: 909.890.9694
4 a-
M
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Analysis for a
Restaurant Project
in the
City of Newport Beach
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Public Works Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
(949) 644 -3323
Prepared by:
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
17852 E. Seventeenth St, Suite 102
Tustin, CA 92780 -2142
Tel: (714) 573 -0317
Fax: (714) 573-9534
July 2005
q3
I
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... ..............................1
2. PROJECT STUDY METHODOLOGY ................................................................. ..............................4
STUDY TIMEFRAMES ............. ...............................
PROJECT STUDY AREA .......... ...............................
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES . ...............................
TRAFFIC COUNT DATA .......... ...............................
FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES .. ...............................
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................
...................................... ..............................4
............................... ..............................6
........................... ............................... 6
... ... ..............................6
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... ............. ..... »............7
EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK .........................
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ......
7
4. PROJECT - RELATED TRAFFIC ......................................................................... .............................13
TRIPGENERATION ...................................................................................................... .............................13
TRIPDISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................... .............................14
1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS ............................................................................... .............................14
0. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH APPROVED PROJECTS ........ ....................... ».....20
FUTURE ANALYSIS....
APPROVED PROJECTS
..................20
6. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH CUMULATIVE PROJECTS ....... .............................26
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
.... .............................26
7. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS .......................................... .............................31
8. MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................. .............................33
9. PROJECT ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION .................................. .............................34
10. PARKING ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... .............................35
11. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... .............................36
Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way restaurant rrolect
gineers and Transpvnadon Planners
r Traffic Phasing Ordinance ` r
a
FIGURE 1 —PROJECT VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 — SITE PLAN ......................
FIGURE 3 — EXISTING GEOMETRIES ................................................................................
..............................8
FIGURE 4 — EXISTING (2005) AM TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...................................................
.............................11
FIGURE 5 — EXISTING (2005) PM TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................
.............................12
FIGURE 6 — INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ......................................................
.............................16
FIGURE 7 — OUTBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ...................................................
.............................17
FIGURE 8 — AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT ............................................
..... .........................18
FIGURE 9 — PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT .............................................
.............................19
FIGURE 10 — APPROVED PROJECTS AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .....................
.............................21
FIGURE 11 — APPROVED PROJECTS PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .....................
.............................22
FIGURE 12 — AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH APPROVED PROJECTS AND WITH THE PROPOSED
PROJECT.................................................................................................................. .............................24
FIGURE 13 — PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH APPROVED PROJECTS AND WITH THE PROPOSED
PROJECT.................................................................................................................. .............................25
FIGURE 14 — CUMULATIVE PROJECTS AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................ .............................27
FIGURE 15 — CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES.. ............................... ............ 28
FIGURE 16 — AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH APPROVED PROJECTS, CUMULATIVE PROJECTS,
AND WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................... .............................29
FIGURE 17 — PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH APPROVED PROJECTS, CUMULATIVE PROJECTS,
AND WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................... .............................30
TABLE 1 — LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................ ..............................5
TABLE 2 — LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ................................. ..............................5
TABLE 3 — EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ................................................................... .............................10
TABLE 4 — TRIP GENERATION RATE ............................................................................... .............................13
TABLE 5 — 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS ................................................................. .............................14
TABLE 6 — EXISTING+ ANNUAL GROWTH + APPROVED PROJECTS... ...... ................................................. 23
TABLE 7 — EXISTING + ANNUAL GROWTH + APPROVED PROJECTS + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS ................26
TABLE 8 — DETERMINATIONS OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS (EXISTING+ ANNUAL GROWTH + APPROVED
PROJECTS) ............................................................................................................... .............................31
TABLE 9 — DETERMINATIONS OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS (EXISTING+ ANNUAL + APPROVED PROJECTS +
CUMULATIVEPROJECTS) ........................................................................................ .............................32
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Traffic Engineers and Transµmaian Planners
ri Traffic Phasing Ordinance 5
A 7,122 square foot sit -down restaurant is being proposed at 4248 Martingale Way in the
City of Newport Beach. The proposed restaurant is expected to be the Saagar Restaurant.
The site is located at the southerly end of Martingale Way where the access will be off
Martingale way and Dolphin Striker Way. The proposed project will open this year (2005)
and the building currently on the site is vacant.
This study is prepared to meet the requirements for analysis of traffic impacts associated
with the proposed restaurant opening. This traffic study has been prepared to meet the
standard requirements of the City of Newport Beach where possible. The traffic study is
intended primarily to address existing traffic conditions, project - related traffic, and
potential traffic impacts on the surrounding street system.
Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the project and the surrounding major
street system. Figure 2 depicts the project site plan.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Kestaurant rroiect
Trap Engincen andTrampmanon Plannen � Tragic Phasing Ordnance
mCJm
1q�C
c
JO
�3i % t
�� 1nKef
m�
d
N D
C
°a w
SS t o
Univer>;ib DrNe
N
Katz, Olcitsu &Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248 Martingale Way Figure 1
Tra�t Engineers and Transyortaiion Planners Project Vicinity Map
Martingale Way
i
1 ;
i
a o�
1 �
1
I --1
I -
1 �
i - 1
- - m
I i J, ® !
' I
I a a
' I i
1
( � 1
1
1 __J
1 i
1
I Y
1 Ay
1
I�
i
1
Dolphin Striker Way —_ — _! ------
___ J
N
atz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248 Martingale Way Figure 2
Traffic Enginars and Transportation Manners Site Plan
This chapter documents the methodologies and assumptions used to conduct the circulation impact
analysis for the proposed project. This section contains the following background information:
' • Study timeframes
• Study area description
• Capacity analysis methodologies
1 Study Tmmeframes
i
This report presents an analysis of intersection operating conditions during the morning and evening
? peak hours for the following anticipated timeframes:
• Existing: Year 2005 .
F • Future: Year 2006 (One year after project completion year)
Project Study Area
Study intersections were identified as those that may potentially be impacted by the proposed project.
All study intersections are signalized and are classified as Primary Intersections in the City of Newport
Beach, and must be analyzed per the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The study area consists of the
following intersections and their adjacent roadway segments:
• Campus Drive at Von Karman Avenue
• Campus Drive at MacArthur Boulevard
• Campus Drive at North Bristol Street
• Campus Drive at Bristol Street
• Birch Street at MacArthur Boulevard
• Birch Street at North Bristol Street
• Birch Street at Bristol Street
• Von Karman Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard
• Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard
Analysis Methodologies
This section presents a brief overview of traffic analysis methodologies and concepts used in this
study. Traffic analyses in the City of Newport Beach require a two -step process. First, all study
intersections undergo the City's "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis' to determine which
intersections require additional analysis. Second, a more detailed intersection capacity analysis is
performed at intersections that the project will increase traffic volumes by more than 1%.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Tragic Eagiffurs and Transpvr46oa Plaaners 14
4 Traffic Phasing Ordinance `j I.
Project Study Methodology
Traffic conditions in Southern California are also often evaluated during peak hours at intersections
using methodology known as the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) technique. This is the
preferred analysis method for the City. The City calculates ICU by dividing the traffic volume at a
particular movement by the capacity of that movement, then adding the ratio of two pairs of critical
movements at that intersection. The City of Newport Beach generally requests that this method of
analysis be used; therefore all signalized intersections were analyzed based on this method.
The intersection operating conditions are typically described in terms of "Level of Service ". The ICU
result is used to determine the intersection level of service in the study. Level of service is a report-
card scale ranging from A to F, used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on roadway segments and at
intersections. This concept is also fundamental to many other forms of traffic analysis. Brief
definitions of level of service are found in Table 1.
Table 1— Level of Service Descriptions
Level of Service
Traffic Description
A
Excellent, Light Traffic
B
Good, Light to Moderate Traffic
C
Moderate Traffic, with Insignificant Delay
D
Heavy Traffic, with Significant Delay
E
Severe Congestion and Delay
F
Failed, Indicated Levels Cannot Be Handled
Table 2 shows the relationship between level of service and the performance measures for signalized
intersections.
Table 2 — Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
A
0.00 -0.60
B
0.61 -0.70
C
0.71 -0.80
D
0.81 -0.90
E
0.91 -1.00
F
Over 1.00
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
T,a(flr Engineers and Ranywm+tar➢lanners 5 Traffic Phasing Ordinance 25
I
Project Study Methodology
Intersection Level of Service Analysis
The analysis of peak hour intersection conditions was conducted using the City's Intersection
Capacity Utilization Analysis worksheets. Parameters used in this analysis include lane capacity of
1600 vehicles /lane /hour for both through and turn lanes. Exclusive right turn lanes are used only
when striped. ICU calculations are made by calculating the volume to capacity ratios for each
movement then adding the critical movements. The City of Newport Beach assumes a zero loss time.
The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
• Weekday AM (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM)
• Weekday PM (peak hour between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM)
Traffic Count Data
Turning movement volumes for all intersections were provided by the City of Newport Beach.
Traffic volumes were collected from year 2002 -2004. A growth rate of 1% per year was applied to
selected street volumes to derive year 2005 turning movement volumes.
Future Traffic Volumes
The City of Newport Beach assumes a 1% annual regional growth on select street segments and no
growth on other streets. Street segments in the project vicinity that are assumed to have an annual
growth are:
• Irvine Avenue — All
• Jamboree Road —Coast Highway to Campus Drive
• MacArthur Boulevard —Coast Highway to north city limit
Existing traffic volumes on these streets are multiplied by a factor of 1.01 to forecast turning
movement volumes for the year 2006. Traffic volumes on other streets and intersections are used
without regional growth adjustments for the future year analyses.
Standards of Significance
Level of Service D is identified as the minimum allowable "Standard' service level during peak hours at
Primary Intersections in the City of Newport Beach. Most arriving traffic will wait at least one cycle
before crossing the intersection under this level of service. An unsatisfactory level of service is defined
as ICU of 0.905 or more.
Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
iineeo and Transponarion Planners
6 Traffic Phasing Ordinance 5L
The site for
the proposed restaurant project is located at
4248 Martingale Way in
the City
of Newport
Beach. The area is bordered on the north
by Birch Street, to the
south by
Bristol Street,
and to the east by MacArthur Boulevard.
Existing Circulation Network
Streets in the site vicinity that could be affected by the proposed project include Campus
1 Drive, Von Karman Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street, Birch Street, and
Jamboree Road. Street pattern in the area runs on a slightly skewed grid. MacArthur
Boulevard will be considered a north/south roadway. Jamboree Road and Von Karman
Avenue will be considered east /west roadways. Bristol Street runs parallel to the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73), which is a north /south highway, but for this
analysis Bristol Street will be considered an east /west roadway. Campus Drive and Birch
Street run at an angle near the project site. For this analysis, Campus Drive and Birch
Street will be considered north/south roadways at the Bristol Street intersections and
east /west roadways at the Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard intersections.
Figure 3 presents the roadway geometrics for the intersections of these roadways.
MacArthur Boulevard is a six -lane divided major arterial roadway bordering the project site to
the east. MacArthur Boulevard runs through the Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine and Santa
Ana. It has a full interchange with the San Diego Freeway (I -405) approximately one mile
t north of the project site. It has a full interchange with the SR 73 approximately one mile
south of the project site. It has a full interchange with the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55)
approximately three miles north of the project site. MacArthur Boulevard is mainly fronted
t by office and tight industrial land uses in the project vicinity. John Wayne Airport is
located on the west side of MacArthur Boulevard approximately 1/2 mile north of the project
site. Parking is generally prohibited on both sides of MacArthur Boulevard. The posted
speed limit is 45 mph.
Campus Drive is a six -lane divided major arterial street running on a northeast /southwest
alignment. It is analyzed as a north /south roadway at the Bristol Street intersections and
an east /west roadway at the Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard intersections.
Campus Drive has a full interchange with the SR 73 approximately one mile south of the
project site. Parking is generally prohibited along both sides of the roadway. The speed
limit is posted at 50 mph.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Yroject
Traffic Engineers and Transyunation Planners
7 Traffic Phasing Ordinance � �
i
Existing Conditions
Von Karman Avenue is a four -lane collector roadway running through the Cities of Newport
Beach and Irvine. It runs on a northeast /southwest alignment. It is analyzed as an
east /west roadway. To the north it begins at Barranca Parkway and stretches south to
MacArthur Boulevard. It changes names to Newport Place Drive south of MacArthur
Boulevard. Land uses along Von Karman Avenue are primarily light industrial and office
uses. Parking is generally prohibited on Von Karman Avenue. The posted speed limit is 45
mph.
Bristol Street is currently a major roadway running parallel to the SR 73 on a
northwest /southeast alignment in the project vicinity. It is analyzed as an east /west
roadway. Bristol Street is a frontage road that runs on both sides of the SR 73. To the
north, Bristol Street runs through the City of Santa Ana and stretches south past I -405
Freeway and the SR 55. It terminates at Jamboree Road. Bristol Street has full
interchanges with the I -405 freeway and the SR 55. Land uses along Bristol Street in the
project vicinity are primarily commercial and industrial uses. The posted speed limit is 45
mph.
Birch Street is a four -lane roadway running on a northeast /southwest alignment. It is
analyzed as a north/south roadway at the Bristol Street intersection and an east /west
roadway at the Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard intersections. Land uses
along Birch Street are primarily light industrial and office uses. Parking is generally
prohibited along both sides of the roadway. The speed limit is posted at 40 mph.
Jamboree Road is a six -lane northeast /southwest arterial street. It is analyzed as an east /west
roadway. To the north, it runs through the Cities of Tustin and Irvine and stretches north
past I -5 Freeway and the I-405 Freeway. To the south, it terminates at Bayside Drive in the
1 City of Newport Beach, and then becomes Marine Drive. Land uses along Jamboree Road in
the project vicinity are primarily commercial and light industrial uses. Parking is generally
prohibited along both sides of the roadway. The speed limit is posted at 50 mph.
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Table 3 summarizes the results of the level of service analysis for the existing conditions.
Figure 4 illustrates the existing AM peak hour traffic volumes and Figure 5 illustrates the
traffic volumes during the PM peak hour of the project.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Traitx Eginrc ff and Transponaemn Hamm 9
Traffic Phasing Ordinance 'rj
Existing Conditions
Table 3 — Existing Traffic Conditions
Study Intersections and Numbers
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU
Level of
Service
ICU
Level of
Service
4155
Bristol Street S. at Campus Dr / Irvine Ave
0.64
B
0.45
A
4295
MacArthur Boulevard at Birch Street
0.39
A
0.48
A
4285
MacArthur Boulevard at Von Karman Ave
0.31
A
0.49
A
4300
MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive
0.49
A
0.75
C
4172
Bristol Street N. at Campus Dr / Irvine Ave
0.42
A
j 0.55
A
4160
Bristol Street S. at Birch Street
0.42
A
0.45
A
4175
Bristol Street N. at Birch Street
0.61
B
0.61
B
4275
Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard
0.71
C
0.86
D
4302
Campus Drive at Von Karman Ave
0.43
A
0.75
C
Note: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization.
As shown in Table 3, the intersection of Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard currently
operates at Level of Service D during the PM peak period. All other intersections operate at
Level of Service C or better during AM and PM peak hours.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Traffic Engineers and Transportation Plan as
10 Tragic Phasing Ordinance 65
sawnlon o!4eil moH dead M SOOZ
q am6i4 AeM ale6ulpeIN gyZt, lo{ aoueulplo
sauueld uOWIJOdn Jl We saaup
o eal sawpossv 78 ns)go
r,
sbz5 r •� \ °�
<e ,
etiu6
£LLt
99ZZ r —ZOZt
9ze` . �-S—Lb
.�z s
\ 6�VBZ
Z
9
N
0ytl 0(
9eslltut �,�� S
zaL
9 -
se£
S
c�h`fyy °t
S�
ASS
°bay f�
<s�• �9s
ill
ti ?' es isa t egr' r ,
ore
z�fr�g
�3 119e °go
7
9RT
9�'�7 '• r 2
` s„J /187
sew\\\
�fs ,
lr
2Si `70S
Okitsu & Associates LiTffic
Ineers and Tramponatlon Planners
/ 116
e s9 ;
329 ..' , j� 1 147
489 ` } y
g9�i X27
• j� 1J18
'e3 X36
, 17
1267
Ordinance for 4248
/ 25 l7g2 \
1 r0 •= 1 itX35
�T
194 62
74 ^234
65'� };-. • 193
9g,
e
19) X80 _e ?3
cy a
72J t -3
1q2--I ._142
215- ,�6A9
231 l�S C
\ 4v 1 I ` 70 /
sas
15'48 \
t 92
1W r�1075
1136' r— gq
2:tr it 230
502
Drive
9�
Way Figure 5
2005 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Project - related traffic consists of trips on any portion of the street system that will begin or end on
the project site as a result of the development of the proposed project. Project - related traffic is a
function of the extent and type of development proposed for the site. This information is used to
establish traffic generation for the site.
The site for the proposed project is currently vacant and has been vacant for more than one year,
therefore the TPO does not permit any trip credit. No existing traffic is attributed to, or generated by
the existing site.
A 7,122 square -foot, sit -down restaurant is being proposed at 4248 Martingale Way in the City of
Newport Beach. The proposed restaurant is expected to be the Saagar Restaurant. The site is located
at the southerly end of Martingale Way where the access will be off Martingale way and Dolphin
Striker Way. The proposed project will open this year (2005).
Trip Generation
Trip generation is a measure or forecast of the number of trips that will be made to or from the
project. It is generally equal to the traffic volume expected at the project entrances.
Trip generation characteristics for projects are calculated based on rates in the Newport Beach Traffic
Analysis Model. The NBTAM indicates traffic generation rates forvarious land uses in the Citybased
upon studies of existing developments in comparable settings. The NBTAM includes trip generation
information for Restaurant (Land Use 13), as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 — Trip Generation Rate
Land Use
Measure
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour"
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Trip Generation Rate
Restaurant
KSF
95.99
0.87
0.81
0.06
7.39
4.95
2.44
Vehicle Trips Generated
Saagar Restaurant
7,122 sf
684
7
6
1
53
35
17
Saagar Restaurant is forecast to generate 684 daily trips, including 7 trips in the AM peak hour, and 53
trips in the PM peak hour.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Traffi, Eginun and Transportation Planners
4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Yroject
13 Traffic Phasing Ordinance
5f
1
,
i
.1
s
_1
Project Related Traffic
Trip Distribution
Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions or traffic routes
that will be utilized by project traffic. The potential interaction between the proposed land use and
surrounding regional access routes are considered to identify the route where the project traffic will
distribute. Vehicles will utilize two main routes to access the project: Corinthian Way to Martingale
Way and Dove Street to Dolphin Striker. Inbound and outbound traffic distribution varies on
Corinthian Way because eastbound left turn from Corinthian Way onto northbound MacArthur
Boulevard is prohibited. The anticipated inbound trip distribution for the proposed development is
presented on Figure 6. Outbound trip distribution is shown on Figure 7.
Figures 8 and 9 indicate the AM and FM peak hour volumes of project related traffic increases,
respectively. Future traffic volumes in the project vicinity are expected to be changed by the amounts
shown on these figures. Due to rounding and matching, a few numbers are off by 1 trip from
calculation outputs.
I% Traffic Volume Analysis
1% Traffic Volume Analysis is the process used by the City of Newport Beach to determine which
intersections require additional analysis. If the projected peak hour volume of project related trips at
any leg of a primary intersection exceeds 1% of forecast traffic volumes in the existing + regional
growth + approved projects scenario for that approach, then that intersection will require additional
cumulative conditions analysis per CEQA guidelines. As shown in Table 5, two intersections in the
project vicinity will experience a project impact of larger than 1 %; all other intersections will not
require additional analysis. Worksheets for this analysis are included in Appendix C.
Table 5 —1% Traliic Volume Analysis
Study Intersections and Numbers
1% Criteria Met?
AM
PM
4155
Bristol Street S. at Campus Dr/ Irvine Ave
No
No
4295
MacArthur Boulevard at Birch Street
No
Yes
4285
MacArthur Boulevard at Von Karman Ave
No
Yes
4300
MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive
No
No
4172
Bristol Street N. at Campus Dr / Irvine Ave
No
No
4160
Bristol Street S. at Birch Street
No
No
4175
Bristol Street N. at Birch Street
No
No
4275
Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard
No
No
4302
Campus Drive at Von Karman Ave
No
No
Okitssu +& Assioeiates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
err « e 14 Traffic Phasing Ordinance
501
Project Related Trafc
Two intersections meet the 1% Traffic Volume Analysis criteria. They are the intersections of Von
Karman at MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street at MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project is
forecast to increase northbound approach volumes on Von Karman at MacArthur Boulevard and the
eastbound approach on Birch at MacArthur by 1% or more of the anticipated future traffic volume on
those approaches. These two intersections will require further analysis during the peak hours. All
other intersections will not require additional analysis.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Kestaurant Yrolect p
Traf(u bwman and T ansyunarloa Plaanms 1„
15 Traffic Phasing Ordinance i,
rah rn 10� r 10% in
�1
0+_
i
r0% rn
ro
1 ,
10% �• 5% o�rn
r �
70 10%
r
/ 10%
15% 15%� 10% 5% is% 15%
. e
&rO t� cOuia a 10%
15% r 15%
CP 3 r
10% 1 15% 15% '� 5%
i
D 11 Mn IS% 10%
ice s 15%
s 30%
Ne�Xr ae 15% ✓ In
5% i i �Sd m aE t5 %tn
i e m � 55°h to
r
f i �ar
r 15 %1n
10° °
i
r
\ 15%
� Sow
r
f r�
r
� UniversNy L)�B
l
sue' N
�__—tz, OkitSU &Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248 Martingale Way Figure 6
Trafrk E'ngineus and Trnnsyonurion Plnrcners Inbound Trip Distribution
Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248
Tra(fm Engineers and Transperwim Planners
Outbound
Figure 7
Distribution
I
l
i
1
7 T
Of
L
T
°
°7t,o `' °7lr fti°
° o '
j 0
0
r
°
0,� 1 • /p i :
(L, i
O I
r i
e
O 0 i Q
i � m
� m
, I
, I
i p Iphfn
� � piker
� 0
10
Aj
°.j .
S Pdp � � o� �O ♦ ♦' 0
f i y
i i Se f
I ,
of
I ,
I "~b
I Q
' , t
ob
0
University Drive .
O
/ � o
In
0'/0
N
"Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248 Martingale Way Figure 8
Tra/KPngineers and Transportation Planners Project Trips - AM Peak Hour
JnoH dead Wd - sdul loafoad uauuvld nanvuadsnvi,(yuv snml8sq �gvjl
61 a n6id �SeM ale6unieW 84Z4 joj eoueuipap 6uise4d 3gfeJl ;E[ IOSSd �$ nsl.40 `gl;
T�
This section develops the future traffic conditions in the study area with ambient growth added but
without the proposed project. The year 2006 was selected for the Analysis Year because the City. of
Newport Beach requires analysis of a 1-year future year. In addition, the project is expected to be
? completed this year, in 2005.
Future Analysis
Future traffic increases are frequently forecasted by applying annual growth factors to existing traffic
volumes. The City of Newport Beach assumes a 1% annual growth rate on some streets and 0% on all
others. Street segments in the project vicinity that are assumed to have an annual growth are:
• Irvine Avenue - All
• Jamboree Road - Coast Highway to Campus Drive
• MacArthur Boulevard - Coast Highway to north city limit
Existing turning movement volumes were multiplied by 1.01 to forecast Year 2006 without project
i
traffic volumes. This volume represents the traffic volumes on the surrounding streets network while
the area continues to experience anticipated growth without the project-
Approved Projects
I
The City requires analysis of traffic conditions including traffic from projects already approved in the
vicinity. Approved Projects are projects already approved by the Planning Commission or City
Council but not yet completed. These projects are anticipated to be complete by 2006. The total trips
generated by these projects are reduced by 20% per the TPO to account for the interaction of
approved project trips. The City provided turning movement volumes at study intersections for
appropriate Approved Projects in the study vicinity. Approved Projects information is included in
Appendix A.
Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the turning movement volumes of Approved Projects.
20 Traffic
anoH Nead Wy - s3oa(oad pano.iddy uan/d xa nirodsun.y pun snauBu3 vWVJL
oL amBid Apm oleBuiueW 8424 Jo; aoueuiruo Buiseyd oyeJl sdiBpossd �g nsi. 0 `z�e}I I
M...
jnoH Mead Wd - s3oa(oad panoaddy vauub uaprm?ds.v,
lLa�n6ij !d lYuvs�aau�8u3N�Jn�1
ReM a�e6ui}�eyy ggzy �o� a�ueuiWp 6uise4d gel �teuoss� �g nStnlO .��x I
L�
I Future Conditions With Project
All future analyses include existing traffic volumes provided by the City adjusted to 2005, plus annual
growth on specified streets. Approved Projects are projects already approved by the City but not yet
completed. Figures 12 and 13 show the AM and PM traffic volumes at the study intersections with
! Approved Projects and the proposed project. The volumes are anticipated to occur approximately 1
{ year into the future. Table 6 evaluates forecasted traffic conditions for the proposed project.
Calculation worksheets are included in Appendix D.
,i
l
.i
}
Table a - Existine + Annual Growth + Approved Projects
Intersection
Without Proposed Project
With Proposed Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
ICU/LOS
ICU/LOS
ICU/LOS
ICUILOS
4285 MacArthur Blvd at Von Karman Ave
0.32 / A
0.49 / A
0.32 / A
0.49 / A
4295 MacArthur Blvd at Birch Street
0.39 / A
0.49 / A
0.39 / A
0.49 / A
Note: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization. Lvs = Levei of service
Both intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the addition of project
trips in the existing plus approved scenario.
Kati Okitsu & Assodateis 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
i rr as�«�e 23 Traffic Phasing Ordinance
I ;oaf0M +
EL ain6id
+ain;ndsawnloAowejlanoHXeadwy `vmunjd— vwd— j.puv— MISu32jjni1
AgAA aleftliBUy 8VZV col aouewpip 6wseyd 0WeJ-L I SalCT30SSV 78 Asimo ZlgN
r
i
i
Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248 Martingale Way
Trafc Enginurs and Tmnspmmim Planners PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future +
1�
Figure 13
+ Project
:3
a
J
This section of the report analyzes traffic conditions in the Year 2006 with ambient growth and
cumulative projects, as provided by the City.
Cumulative Projects
The City also requires analysis of traffic conditions including trips from Cumulative Projects in the
' vicinity. This section is also used to satisfy requirements under the California Environmental Quality
IAct. Cumulative Projects are projects that have not been approved by the City but are reasonably
foreseeable that they will be approved in the near future. The City provided a list of Cumulative
Projects to be included in this study. The list of Cumulative Projects is included in Appendix B.
Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the turning movements of Cumulative Projects in the City.
Figures 16 and 17 show the AM and PM traffic volumes at the study intersection expected on the
roadway including Approved Projects, Cumulative Projects, and the proposed project. The volumes
are anticipated to occur approximately 1 year into the future. Table 7 evaluates forecasted traffic
conditions for the proposed project. Worksheets for this scenario are found in Appendix E.
Table 7 - Existing + Annual Growth + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects
Intersection
Without Proposed Project
With Proposed Project
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak
Hour
ICU/LOS
ICU /LOS
ICU /LOS
ICU/LOS
4285 MacArthur Blvd at Von Karman Ave
0.35 / A
0.53/A
0.35 / A
0.53 / A
4295 MacArthur Blvd at Birch Street
0.40 / A
0.51 /A
0.40 / A
0.51 / A
Note: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization. LOS = Level of Service
Both study intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the addition of
project trips in the future year.
Associate 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
WW14W 26 Traffic Phasing Ordlnance
-)I
Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248 Martir
Tmfrk Engineers and Transportation Planners cumulative
�Lf
AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
1zg 726
6
0
0 o
°71 a °710.
96 0
0 °
I
Lo
I
• J ,
�y (�• f
r I
1
I
r ;
I
c�
r
I
I
�a o
I yL° 126
.....
^a.. _
Neym� �P 0 142
s � t
' .tr Rays .� I CA"
19 r a
e
I t
1 ; r
� t 168
' 0)
L°
�_'� ,___160
f/O n,�0 114
((((y,,,,j
44
�O 1A0
O /o O
UnivereVlY ome
N
�3
Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248 Martingale Way Figure 15
Trafx Engixeers and TraxspmiatknPlaxxen Cumulative Projects PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
"NIF Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248 Martingale Way Figure t8
rrac Exgixtns and Traxspcmatian Planners AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future + Approved + Cumulative + project
t
1
i
t
t
1
i
778 3�i i+738
798 'mot f 62
74 - X236
r ?83
58�
J� 27p
i r
i
i
i
i
' cP
h�
i�
i
C
D tnwx
ker
�e 1035
_ 73 ii33
m
L3
Ne e zt?� i s9+
a
Ski 5 Q11- g e � � 1 ZIs
740
air a �^
m
e�
met
University Drive
N
-�5
Katz, Okitsu & Associates Traffic Phasing Ordinance for 4248 Martingale Way Figure 17
ragrFsgi as and TranspmwfionPlannem PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Future + Approved + Cumulative + Project
Traffic impacts are identified if the proposed project will result in a significant change in traffic
conditions on a roadway or intersection. A significant impact is normally defined when project
related traffic would cause level of service to deteriorate to below the minimum acceptable level by a
measurable amount. Impacts may also be significant if the location is already below the minimum
acceptable level and project related traffic causes a further decline.
Level of Service E is identified as the minimum allowable 'Standard" service level during peakhours at
Primary Intersections in the City of Newport Beach. Most arriving traffic will wait at least one cycle
before crossing the intersection under this level of service. An unsatisfactory level of service is defined
as ICU of 0.905 or more.
Table 8 summarizes the increase in intersection capacity utilization at the study area intersection in
the future with Approved Projects scenario. Table 9 summarizes the change in intersection
performance in the future with Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects scenarios.
Table 8 — Determinations of Traffic Impacts
(Existing + Annual Growth + Approved Projects)
Intersection
Existing
Without
Project
WITH
Project
Increase
ImpacO
285 Mac Arthur Blvd at Von Karman Ave
AM Peak Hour
0.31 / A'
0.32 /A /
0.32 / A
0.00
No
M Peak Hour
0.49 /A
0.49/A /
0.49/A 1
0.00
No
295 Mac Arthur Blvd at Birch Street
AM Peak Hour
0.39 / A I
0.39 /A,
0.39 1,K
0.00
No
M Peak Hour
0.48 /A +
0.49 /A,
0.49 / A
0.00
No
The project will not result in a significant impact at any intersections in the Future plus Approved
Projects scenario.
Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project io
gineen and Tmnspamrmn Planners
31 Traffic Phasing Ordinance
1
i
Determination of Significant Impact
Table 9 — Determinations of Traffic Impacts
(Existing + Annual + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects)
The project will not result in a significant impact at any intersections in the Future plus Approved
Projects plus Cumulative Projects scenario.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Traffix Engineers and Transivrra an Pfannen
32 Tragic Phasing Ordinance
Existing
Without
Project
WITH
Project
Increase
ImpacO
285 Mac Arthur Blvd at Von Karman Ave
M Peak Hour
0.31 /A
0.35 / A.
0.35/
0.00
No
M Peak Hour
0.49 /A '
0.53 / A
0.53 / A
0.00
No
295 Mac Arthur Blvd at Birch Street
AM Peak Hour
0.39 / A
0.40 /A '
0.40 / A
0.00
No
M Peak Hour
0.48 / A i
0.51 / A
0.51 / A
0.00
No
The project will not result in a significant impact at any intersections in the Future plus Approved
Projects plus Cumulative Projects scenario.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Traffix Engineers and Transivrra an Pfannen
32 Tragic Phasing Ordinance
4
i
I
i The proposed restaurant project will not result in any significant impacts in the future plus
Approved Projects scenario or the future plus Approved Projects plus Cumulative Projects
scenario. No mitigation measures are required.
1
I
I
I
Katz, Okitsu &Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Tragic Eginwrs and TranWrarou Planners
33 Traffic Phasing Ordinance
The project will take access to the local street network from Martingale Way and from
Dolphin Striker Way. Both streets end in cul -de -sacs at the parking lot of the project site.
The project site shares a parking lot with two other restaurant uses. Driveways onto
Martingale Way and Dolphin Striker Way allow both in and out movements without
restrictions. The project site plan is not proposing to modify the existing parking lot or the
existing ingress and egress routes. Existing driveways are more than adequate to
accommodate two -way traffic. The proposed site plan shows a 24' drive aisle in front of
the building, and a 32' drive aisle north of the building, leading to the Martingale Way
driveway. Deliveries will be made via an existing ramp and entrance on the south side of
the building. Access will be from Dolphin Striker Way; delivery vehicles will not need to
enter the customer parking areas. The proposed project site plan will be reviewed by the
City of Newport Beach for compliance with applicable standards. Any minor circulation
issues will be addressed in conjunction with its review. Katz, Okitsu & Associates has no
concerns over the proposed site plan.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates has also received a site plan for Hamburger Marys, a proposed
restaurant that may replace the existing Trophy's restaurant, on an adjacent parcel.
Hamburger Mary's is not proposing any modifications to the existing site or circulation
routes. Katz, Okitsu & Associates does not believe the proposed site plan of Hamburger
Mary's restaurant will have an affect on the circulation or access for the proposed project.
Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
ginrrrs and Trans�vrrarion Hmntn
34 Traffic Phasing Ordinance
The proposed project consists of a total of 71122 sf of full- service sit -down restaurant
without live entertainment. No outdoor dinning area is provided. The site plan illustrates
58 parking stalls, 3 non - standard stalls, plus 3 handicap stalls. Non - standard stalls are not
used to meet the City's minimum parking requirement.
` Parking supply and parking demand are normally measured or calculated on the basis of
r developed building area, expressed in square feet per parking space or in parking spaces per
1000 sf. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code specifies off- street parking space
requirement for various land uses in the City. Section 20.66.070 specifies that the Planning
Commission shall establish the off - street parking requirement for Eating and Drinking
i Establishments, Cabarets, and Nightclubs within a range of one space for each 30 to 50
square feet of net public area. "Net Public Area" is defined as the total area of eating and
drinking establishments excluding kitchens, restrooms, offices pertaining to the use only,
and storage areas. A rate of one space for each 50 square feet of net public area was
previously established for this establishment. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires
1 handicap parking stall per 25 regular stalls up to 100 stalls.
The net public area of the proposed restaurant project is 2,696 sf, as confirmed by the
Planning Department. According the City - specified parking requirement the proposed
project is required to provide 54 parking stalls. The site is also required to provide 3
handicap parking stalls, in addition. The site provides 58 regular parking stalls, 3 compact
non - standard stalls, plus 3 handicap stalls. On -site parking supply is adequate to meet the
forecast parking demand generated by the proposed project.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
TrWie Enginan and Tranwriatimr Planners
35 Tragic Phasing Ordinance
A restaurant project is proposing to occupy an existing vacant building at 4248 Martingale
Way in the City of Newport Beach. The restaurant will be the Saagar Restaurant and
encompass a total 7,122 square feet. The site is located at the southerly end of Martingale
Way, and the eastern end of Dolphin Striker Way. Access can be taken from Martingale
Way and Dolphin Striker Way.
This study analyzed potential traffic impacts of this project at nine intersections in the
project vicinity during the AM and PM peak hours. The proposed project is expected to add
684 daily trips, including 7 trips during the AM peak hour and 53 trips during the PM peak
hour to the nearby roadway system. The 1% Traffic Volume Analysis identified two
intersections requiring further peak hour analysis.
No significant traffic impacts were identified in the future plus Approved Projects plus
Proposed Project scenarios or the future plus Approved Projects plus Cumulative Projects
plus Proposed Project scenario. Katz, Okitsu & Associates believes that the proposed
restaurant project would have no adverse traffic impact on the surrounding roadway
system.
This study also examined on -site parking adequacy for the proposed restaurant. According
to the City's parking requirement, the proposed project is required to provide 54 parking
stalls. The site provides 58 regular parking stalls, plus 3 handicap stalls. On -site parking
supply is adequate to meet the forecast parking demand.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Talc bliaws and T+anslronation Planners
36 Tragic Phasing Ordinance U
Appendices:
APPENDIX A - APPROVED PROJECTS
APPENDIX B -- CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
APPENDIX C — 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D — CAPACITY ANALYSIS — EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT
APPENDIX E — CAPACITY ANALYSIS — EXISTING + APPROVED +
CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Tw jig Enginuu and Twnwnadom Planners
4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
e'
s
s
i
0
Appendix A
Approved Projects
Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
ginem and Transyonmion Plana s
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
N
W
a
R
S
U)
v m
C 7 O
0 CL
0
C
_C co O
U) V
A � m
t
V V m
V
H >0
e
CL
CL
.Q
4
K
L'
$a
W
W:
W: r
W;
J:
W:
a
3:
CO:
O N
Um: N V
W'.
N O
F r N
Z:
W:
J:O N
F- •
Z:
W:
F
N
`
CL
r N
S W:,
r�
Z :
F; CC,
CA :
^
/�\
" �
J: h
N:
Z.
m
N
ED
J
a': D
Z:
0O
y
m
H:to CO
Z, N
Qp1. (1)
O
1p:0
W.:O
Z,
CL
Z.:
M
c:K
�
m
U
w
o m;
m:>
H
w;
M'W
Z:Z
m:
Si
a CA:
Y
m m:
ism:c�ia0
m:
w:
Z:y
F
N
Y
f0
Z:a}
ah
m:
E: n
E
S :
Z:l
Z:.w
rm:ON
Z n
Gj
$a
W
W:
W: r
W;
J:
W:
a
3:
CO:
O N
O�.
N N
J; N
C:
W:
W;
J:
W'.
Y
a
=a.;r N
r y'
h O N
rn
a':
N O
Z:
Z;
\J Z:
F- •
Z:
M Co
r r
F
`
r N
Z :
-
J f
z:
U
Z.
m
ED
z
S
m
yid
Qp1. (1)
A
1p:0
W.:O
m:
Z
Z.:
r
c:K
�
m
y N
r
W.
o m;
m;
H
w;
X
qN m:ON
F
m!
E: °Co
a CA:
Y
m m:
Z:r
m:
N N
Z:y
Z
N
C
Z:a}
Ca
Z,rN
O�.
N N
J; N
C:
W:
W;
J:
W'.
Y
a
=a.;r N
r y'
h O N
rn
¢a
3;
M r
cr:
W:
J:
W:
A
a
07;O r
Jj
�1
Z
Z:
Z;
\J Z:
F- •
Z:
M Co
r r
F
Z:
J
co
J f
z:
r
ED
m
ED
z
S
yid
Qp1. (1)
A
1p:0
ml
Z: Z CL
Z
C,4
r
:V
tm
o m;
m;
w;
F
FW:
Y
m m:
O N
a (A:
= CA:
E:�
Z:a}
Ca
Z,rN
m :
Cj
Z:
¢a
3;
M r
cr:
W:
J:
W:
A
a
07;O r
Jj
�1
Z:
N:
Z:
co
Z:rr
m
z
Qp1. (1)
1p:0
ml
It N
Z
�s
r
tm
m;
FW:
Y
m miOr
= CA:
m :
r N
Z:
Z
81
�
E
§
8§
§
k20
$/� CL
o &c
I °§
CL
&2k
JI
CL
«
/
«,
k�
e'm %
W:
bra a
§ §:e e
#�I
W:
«�
k�
z'
`
R
�
elm
§
CD
§)
§
Z.
e _
m
;
(
\
§
2.
k:b
°
u
) 5'_
§
z:
M.
� ,
j
0
2
Z :`
f :�
�
\
m
CL
z
{w
z
Z :m
\
Z
£:M m ;�
,
:7
7
LU:`
E::2
�
a
y:§
} /�®
) m:
e :
) :r
`
_�
-z�m,
, m
Z:
}:®
#�I
W:
«�
k�
» I I
k�
y�
E:
§
co:�-
.to:
5:
z:
R
�
elm
§
§)
§
!
+ is
;
(
\
!: 3
2.
k:b
°
m
) 5'_
■;\ .
M.
� ,
j
0
:
Z :`
f :�
�
\
m
CL
z
z
E :� ± :
\
Z
£:M m ;�
,
:7
7
E::2
�
y:§
) m:
e :
):®
, m
Z:
» I I
k�
y�
E:
§
co:�-
.to:
< CL
!�
\ cm
E:
} E�= m
a�
_
)
z:
R
�
elm
§
�®
§
\
Z ;
z.
;
■:
.
!: 3
2.
k:b
) 5'_
■;\ .
M.
� ,
� $�
0
:
f :�
�
Z�v
Z:
» :
< CL
!�
\ cm
E:
} E�= m
a�
_
z:
o
§
�®
I
■;\ .
M.
� ,
� $�
:
k a:~
�
» :
lm:ge
E :� ± :
- :
£:M m ;�
,
:7
#aI
§�
Appendix B
Cumulative Projects
Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
gineers and Trnnsyonmlou PMnaers
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
S(,O
i
Table 3 - Summary of Cumulative Projects
1 "
I Citv Project Name
j Project Description
South Coast Shipyard
28 Apartments
19.6 KSF Commercial
Newport
10.4 KSF Commercial Office
Beach a Mormon Temple
I7 46 KSF Mormon Temple
Saint Mark Presbyterian Church
34.8 KSF Church
= 3 ;
4.72 KSF Davcare
i Our Lady Queen of Angels
18.5 KSF Church
250 Students
Gj
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
j 35.95 KSF Church
I
!
Bonita Canyon
rcial Center
1 40.3 KSF Communi etail
11.E Restaurant
Mariners Church
1 35 KSF Health Club
328.25 KSF Church
Exodus Community Center and Tarbut
48.73 KSF Health Club
V'Torah Expansion
83.49 KSF Church
High School
320 Students
- Elementary/Middle School
160 Students
- Child Care Center
27.7 8 KSF
j
Newport Coast
3,180 SF Residential (954 future)
j S
1,880 Condo / MF Residential (564
future
Newport Ridge
2,107 SF Residential (632 future)
1,281 MF Residential (384 future)
101959 KSF Commercial
10
Lower Ba 'ew Senior Housin
.120 Senior Housing DU
I`
Bonita Canyon - Residential
I436Apartments
Irvine Crossings
736 Apartments
102.6 KSF Industrial
pus Center Phase IIB
202 Condomini
Irvine
132.8 ce
Marble
224mgle- Family Dwelling
330 Condominiums
Central Park --
1,380 Multi- Family Dwelling
19.6 KSF Retail
SF Office
/
>eholle Development
42 / 7.5 KSF Restaurant /
54 KSF Health C1ub4.4ZKSF Office / -
23 KSF Industrial
DU = Dwelling Units SF = Single - Family (Residential)
KSF =Thousand Square Feet MF = Multi-Family (Residential)
Newport Lexus - 11 - September, 2004 Sri
Traffic Impact Study
I
3. SOUTH COAST SHIPYARD
The South Coast Shipyard project consists of 28 residential units, 19,600 square feet of
commercial retail, and 10,400 square feet of commercial office. The project retains
10,400 square feet of existing commercial office and 3,800 square feet of existing retail.
The project is located at 2300 Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach.
Proiect Trio Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a
i development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based
upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed
i development. The project site is proposed to be developed with 28 residential
dwelling units, 19,600 square feet of commercial retail, and 10,400 square feet of
' commercial office.
Trip generation rates for the proposed development are shown in Table 3 -1. The
trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the City of Newport Beach.
In order to determine the net trip generation for the site, it is necessary to subtract
the existing uses form the proposed project. Both daily and peak hour net trip
generation estimates for, the proposed project are shown in Table 3 -2. The
proposed development is projected to generate approximately 892 net trip -ends per
i day with 55 net trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 79 net trips per hour
during the PM peak hour.
Traffic Distribution
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the
site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the
I
3 -1 S �
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3 -1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Residential - Apartments
DU
0.90
0.42
0.43
0.20
6.47
Commercial Retail
TSF
0.60
0.50
1.90
2.00
45.00
General Office
TSF
2.60
0.35
1.49
7.26
22.44
' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates, Institue of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation,
Sixth Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 710
' DU = Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
I
U: 1UcJobsW0636tExce11100636-02xls]T 3.1
3 -2 <6
TABLE 3 -2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE
QUANTITY
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Existing Credits
Commercial Retail
3.8
TSF
2
2
7
8
171
CommercialOifice
10.4
TSF
27
4
15
76
233
TOTAL CREDITS
29
6
23
83
404
Pro osed Project
Residential - A artments
28
DU
25
12
12
6
181
Commercial Retail
19.6
TSF
12
10
37
39
882
Commercial Office
10.4
TSF
27
4
15
76
233
TOTAL
1 54
26
64
121
1,296
NET NEW TRIPS
35
20
41
1 38
892
' DU = Dwelling Unit
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
U:wwobsw0636NEzcenIOD636 -02 XMT 3-2
3 -3
t1
proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was
determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community
and existing traffic vglumes.
Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based
upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the
r project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 3 -A. It should be noted that the patterns
,. shown on Exhibit 3 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to and from the
project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent
residential, commercial, and recreational opportunities.
i
i
i
3-4 q1
1
1
I
3 -5
W
a
G z
Z
W
0
W "
J °
o °i
e le
0
I
/.
4. MORMON TEMPLE
The proposed Mormon Temple is located at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Road
at Prairie Road in the City of Newport Beach. The site is currently vacant and does not
generate a significant amount of traffic. A Mormon Church currently exists and is located
adjacent to the proposed temple site. The proposed Temple will share access off the
i Prairie Road north of Bonita Canyon Road. The project includes a 17,460 square foot
Temple facility to accommodate seating for 100 persons. The project site includes a total
of approximately 147 on -site parking spaces.
Proiect Trio Generation
Trip generation rates, which are appropriate for the project, are identified and the
resulting trip generation is determined. The trip rates have been based on the
traffic study prepared for the proposed temple (Mormon Temple Traffic Phasing
Ordinance Analysis (Revised May 10, 2002) Urban Crossroads, Inc.) and are
summarized in Table 4 -1.
Based on the trip rates presented in Table 4 -1, Table 4 -2 summarizes the number
of vehicles entering and exiting the site during the AM peak hour (7 -9 AM), the PM
peak hour (4-6 PM), and for the entire day. Tuesday through Thursday are
considered typical days in which to collect traffic data. However, due to the
peaking characteristics that were observed on Friday, this data was also included
in the analysis to ensure a conservative "worse case" scenario.
Based upon the trip generation rates, the project trip generation was calculated
and is shown in Table 4 -2. As indicated in Table 4 -2, the proposed use would
generate approximately 410 trips per day with 25 trips during the AM peak hour
and 26 trips per hour during the PM peak hour.
4 -1 0
TABLE 4 -1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
WEEKDAY CONDITIONS
LAND USE
PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES
DAILY RATE
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Moran Temple Rates Based on:
:1.:1:-21
2.99
44.11
Thousand Square Feet
0.28
0.93
0.56
23.46
WEEKEND CONDITIONS
LAND USE
PEAK HOUR TRIP
DAILY RATE
IN
OUT
Morman Temple Rates Based on:
Thousand Square Feet
3.12
2.99
44.11
' Source: Empirical data collection /trip generation analysis conducted by
Solaegui Engineers, LTD (September 15, 2001)
U: VUWobs \006361ExceP400636- 02.xIsTr4 -1
4 -2
q `
TABLE 4 -2
NEWPORT BEACH MORMON TEMPLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
WEEKDAY
LAND USE
QUANTIJ
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
I IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Mormon Tem Je
Thousand Square Feet
17.46
TSF
54
52
770
Thousand Square Feet
17.46
TSF
1 20
5
16
10
410
WEEKEND
LAND USE
QUANTITY
UNITS'll
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
IN
I OUT
Mormon Temple
Thousand Square Feet
17.46
TSF
54
52
770
' TSF = Thousand Square Feet
U:1UcJobs100636\Exceh [00636- 02.xls]T4 -2
4 -3 0
Proiect Trip Distribution
The trip distribution patterns based on the residences of Temple members will be
i used for routing project traffic on the roadway network.
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. The trip distribution patterns and percentages have been based on
the roadway system surrounding the site and the residences of temple members
(or stakes) in relation to the site. Appendix "B" contains the information regarding
the location of the stakes and the logical route that would be used to access the
proposed site. Exhibit 4 -A illustrates the project distribution percentages.
The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been
based upon the site's trip generation, trip distribution, and surrounding arterial
highway and local street systems.
4-4 9(o
4
c
o
Xm
NU
rCC
ti
z
cn
4-5
11
ir
/0 bj
'50
i
., ql
I
? 5. ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
I
St. Mark's Presbyterian Church proposed project will consists of a church and day care
center. The church will consist of 34,800 square feet and the day care center will consist
of 4,720 square feet, respectively. The project is located in the City of Newport Beach at
the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road.
Protect Trip Generation
t Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a
1 development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based
E upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed
development. The project site is proposed to be developed with a 34,800 square
foot church and 4,720 square foot day care center.
Trip generation rates for the proposed development are shown in Table 5-1. The
trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the City of Newport Beach.
Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are
1 shown in Table 5-2. The proposed development is projected to generate
approximately 66 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 86 trips per hour
during the PM peak hour.. .
Traffic Distribution
1
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the
i
site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the
proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was
5 -1 9
TABLE 5 -1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITS2
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Church
TSF
0.08
0.03
0.34
0.30
N /A3
Daycare
TSF
6.90
6.12
6.40
7.22
79.26
' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates
2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 NIA =Not Available
U: �UcJobs 1006361ExceK[00636-02.xls]T 5.1
5 -2
,
i
I
I
i
i
I
i
1
i
TABLE 5 -2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE
QUANTITY
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
�JI:N=
OUT
Church
34.8
TSF
3
1
12
10
NIA?
Da are
4.720
TSF
33
29
30
34
374
pTAL
36
30
42
44
N/A
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Y N/A = Not Available
U :walubsIM36%ExceRDD636- 02.xlsjT 5.2
5 -3 Ana
i
determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community
and existing traffic volumes.
I
i
t
Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based
upon those highway facilities which are in place. The inbound trip distribution
pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 5 -A. Exhibit 5-B graphically
depicts the outbound trip distribution pattern for the project, respectively. It should
be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 5 -A and 5-13 reflect potential
origins /destinations of traffic to and from the project site. This reflects the
directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential, commercial, and
recreational opportunities.
5-4 161
�vZ
O
mfg
y m
N
W
0.
H �
gL z
99 O
m
F
_Z
rx
y
1
W
5 -5
G
Z
W
a
W
J
>4 11
�m
0
a
0
zz
a
z c
a W
A tl
I �
t
0
1a3�
L6
o
in-
wpm
aim
W
O
s d
im
i y
W 0
I o.
a in
FO�
a
i
4
r
5
5
1 s_
1 —
s
t _
E
i
s
E
1
t
i
1
i
5 -6
i
rka
.R
0
6
f
0
s
LL
Z
z�
a
W c
J
m
)✓
BV
5 -6
i
rka
.R
0
6
f
0
s
LL
Z
z�
a
W c
J
m
)✓
i
6 OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS
The proposed project consists of a church and a private elementary school. The church
r
will accommodate 18,900 square feet; while the school is expected to have 250 students.
The project is located in the City of Newport Beach at the intersection of Jamboree Road
and Eastbluff Drive / Ford Road.
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a
development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based
upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed
development.
Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 6-1.
r
Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are
shown in Table 6 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate
approximately 78 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 12 trips per hour
r during the PM peak hour.
I Traffic Distribution
i
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the
site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the
proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was
determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community
and existing traffic volumes.
6 -1 10'
TABLE 6 -1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITSZ
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
a30
Church
TSF
0.08
0.03
0.34
NIA3
Classrooms
STU
0.18
0.12
NOW
I NOM
1.09
Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates
T TSF = Thousand Square Feet; STU = Students
3 NIA = Not Available
NOM = Nominal
U: 1UcJobs1006361Exce1 1[00636.02.xls]T 6-1
MW
105
TABLE 6 -2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Church
TSF
2
1
6
6
N/A
Classrooms
I STU
1 45
1 30
1 0
0
273
Total
1 47
1 31
1 6
6
N/A
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; STU = Students
Z N/A = Not Available
U:\Uc.Jobs \00636 \Excel \[00636.02.xls]T 6-2
6 -3
j6�
4
Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based
upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the
project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 6 -A. It should be noted that the patterns
shown on Exhibit 6 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the
project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent
i residential and commercial opportunities.
F
I
I
i
i
3
I
I
6-a 101
Como
049
c1t;
Z3
W
I
W
co
6-5
Z
W
A
see
Nc
LL
z
O
rAA
AL
Mo.
7. ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH
The proposed project consists of a 2,000 quare -feet addition to an existing church
complex including a youth center / ymnasium, classrooms, offices and a parking
1 structure (not included in the square- feet). The project will replace the 32,000 square -feet
of youth center, classrooms, offices. The project is located in the City of Newport Beach
at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and 15th Street.
Proiect Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a
development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based
upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed
development.
"Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 7 -1.
I Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are
I
shown in Table 7 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate
f approximately 4 trips per hour during the AM peak hour and 21 trips per hour
i
during the PM peak hour.
ff
}
f
Traffic Distribution
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the
site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the
proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was
determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community
and existing traffic volumes.
7-1 t DA
I
i
l
i
t(
1
t
1
i
i
i
TABLE 7 -1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITSZ
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN OUT
IN OUT
Church
TSF
0.08 0.03
0.34 0.30
NIA
' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates
2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
3 NIA =Not Available
U: 1UcJobs \006361ExcePI00636.02.xlslT 7 -1
7 -2 1 j
1
1
i
i
1
k
r
i
f
i
i
}
f
1
C
i
I
1
s
I
1
1
I
TABLE 7 -2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN OUT
IN OUT
Church
TSF
3 1
11 10
N/A
' TSF = Thousand Square Feet
2 N/A = Not Available
U:\ UWabs\W636\Exce11100636-02.xlsIT 7 -2
7 -3
S �1
I
Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based
i
upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the
project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 7 -A. It should be noted that the patterns
' shown on Exhibit 7 -A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to/from the
1
project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent
residential and commercial opportunities.
1
1
I
I
I
7-4
iii
W�y
13
IL
O
C
Nf
i
I
i
ti
i
1
i
j1
I
1
}
1
i
i
i
i
s
7 -5
N
�a
e
s
w
f
0
r
D z
Z v
W
W
6
W '
J o
116
I
)13
I
10. MARINERS CHURCH
The proposed project consists of a health club and church development. The
health club will accommodate approximately 35,000 square feet and the church
i
will consist of 328,250 square feet. The project is located in the City of Newport
Beach at the intersection of Bonita Canyon Drive and Newport Coast Drive.
i
Project Trip Generation
i
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or
yattracted to a development. The traffic generation for this project has been
estimated, based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for
i the proposed development.
Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 10-1.
I
Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project
I are shown in Table 10 -2. The proposed development is projected to
I generate approximately 6,192 person trip -ends per day with 406 person trips
I per hour during the AM peak hour and 503 person trips per hour during the
i PM peak hour. However, based on the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model
I (ITAM), approximately 4,505 vehicle trips per day will be generated with 252
i AM trips and 319 PM trips.
i
Traffic Distribution
I
I
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from
the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical
location of the site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational
10 -1
1
1
i
i
f
1
f
i
f
i
i
1
!
TABLE 10 -1
PERSON TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITSZ
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Health Club
TSF
1.25
0.85
2.93
1.93
54.14
Church, Synagogue
TSF
0.63
1 0.38
1 0.55
1 0.46
13.09
' Source: City of Irvine Mariners Church Master Plan, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
U:1UcJobs1006361Excel\[00636- 02.xis]T 10.1
10-2 1 1 5
i
TABLE 10 -2
1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
]
1
f
f
LAND USE
QUANTITY
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Person Trip Generation
Health Club
Church, Synagogue
35.0
328.25
TSF
TSF
44
( 207
30
125.
103
181
68
151
1,895
4,297
Total Person I nD Generation
Total Vehicle Trip Generation
"F-115f..'
1 251 4
155 =
95
284
182
219 -
137 `:
6,192
d 505
. 31j l-
j
l
r
i
1
I
1
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
1 z Derived during traffic model mode choice process
U:\ UeJobs \00636\ExceR[00636 -02.xls]T 10 -2
10-3
116
{ opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The
directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing land
uses and highways within the community and existing traffic volumes.
I
Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions,
based upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution
pattern for the project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 10 -A. It should be
noted that the patterns shown on Exhibit 10-A reflect potential
origins /destinations of traffic to/from the project site. This reflects the
directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential and commercial
opportunities.
10-4
\
LWL
♦
f♦/�
VJ
br
10 -5
W
0
a
O
s
O
r
G z
Z v
W °C
(' a
W O
J �
/
�I
ra
°o
N
Z
QO
N
W
z
>`x
6' W
LL V
O�
�O
V
V
C
N
cI
11. EXODUS COMMUNITY CENTER AND TARBUT VTORAH EXPANSION
I
's
The proposed project consists of a 48,730 square foot health club, an 83,490 square foot
church, a 320 student high - school, a 160 student elementary/middle school, and a 27,780
1
square foot child care center development. The project is located in the City of Irvine at
the intersection of Culver Drive and Bonita Canyon Drive.
Project Trio Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a
development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based
f upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed
development.
Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 11 -1.
1
Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are
shown in Table 11 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate
' approximately 7,376 person trip -ends per day with 947 person trips per hour during
the AM peak hour and 911 person trips per. hour during, the PM peak hour.
1 However, based on the Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM), approximately
' 5,365 vehicle trips per day will be generated with 584 AM trips and 573 PM tripe:
1
t Traffic Distribution
i
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the
site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the
proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was
determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community
and existing traffic volumes.
11 -1
�l
TABLE 11 -1
PERSON TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITS
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
RAM Person Trip Rates
Health Club
TSF
1.25
0.85
2.93
1.93
5414
Church, Synagogue
TSF
0.63
0.38
0.55
0.46
13.09
Hi h School
STU
0.37
0.18
0.03
0.08
1.94
Elementary, Middle School
STU
0.24
0.17
0.03
0.07
1.54
Child Care Center
TSF
9.53
9.14
6.13
13.25
99.99
Source: City of Irvine Exodus Community Center and Tarbut VTOrah Expansion Traffic Study
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
I STU = Students
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
u:lUcJobs1006361Ec NW63"2 1sjT 11 -1
11 -2
lab
TABLE 11 -2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE
QUANTITY
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Person Trips
Health Club
48.73
TSF
61
41
143
94
2638
Church, Synapoque
83.49
TSF
53
32
46
38
1093
High School
320
STU
118
58
10
26
621
Elementary. Middle School
160
STU
38
27
5
11
248
Child Care Center
27.78
TSF
265
254
170
368
2778
TOTAL PERSON TRIP GENERATION
535
412
374._,,,
_...537.,...
„ 7376
TOTAL VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
1'3
' -1
240
333
5365'
STU = Students
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
2 Derived during traffic model mode choice process
U :tUCJobsk006361E=rgO0636 -02xlsjr 11 -2
11 -3
f�,l
I
Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based
upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the
project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 11 -A. It should be noted that the patterns
shown on Exhibit 11 -A reflect potential origins/destinations of traffic to/from the
project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent
residential and commercial opportunities.
11-4 : °?,
Q Z Z
O
mOg
i -' m
X'
w p�
Z Z
�.y
I Z i
Z Q.
Vx
i � W
Z
O
V
in
a � s
D
s
Yi
3
i
I
i
W
F-
U)
♦
1
11 -5
Z
W
W
J
W
C
6
LL
0
Z
v
c
a
a
0
I
ems%
p
an
W W
V Z
7
�z
a0
�z
81
oa
x
W r
a�
zm
m
o�
L °a
v¢
z
0
N
�I
I
1
0
12. NEWPORT COAST
The proposed project consists of single and mufti- family residential dwelling units. These
developments are located within the Sphere of Influence of Newport Beach but were
processed through the County of Orange. The developments are generally located
between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Pacific Coast Highway
adjacent to Newport Coast Drive.
Proiect Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a
development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based
upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed
development.
Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 12 -1.
Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are
i shown in Table 12 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of
1 approximately 103,015 trip -ends per day with 7,599 trips per hour during the AM
peak hour and 6,625 trips per hour during the PM peak hour.
t
Traffic Distribution
r
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the
site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the
proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was
i
determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community
and existing traffic volumes.
12 -1
TABLE 12 -1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITS2
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Condominium/Townhouse 51'A
DU
0.17
0.49
0.47
0.36
8.10
Multi Family Dwelling R �,..'
DU
0.42
0.43
0.20
6.47
Single Family Detached Residential
DU
0.20
0479
0.70
0.40
11.00
State Park (gross acres)
AC
0.21
.90 '
0.29
1 0.31
19.15
J
' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates
2 DU = Dwelling Units
AC = Acres
U:lUcJobs1006361Excell [00636- 02.xls]T 12 -1
12_2 (R5
f
r
i
i
i
TABLE 12.2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
I
C
0 f'
r
T-6157— Dwelling Units
AC = Acres
U: Ucuebs=M\Exc N00636- 02.x1sjT 12 -2
Jv
IV
12 -3
Is-
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
LAND USE
QUANTITY
UNITS'
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
FTA:Z
FAREA
CondominiumrTownhouse
121
DU
21
59
57
44
980
Sin le Famil Detached Residential
36
DU
7
25
25
14
396
Condominium/Townhouse
888
DU
151
435
417
320
7,193
1
Single Family Detached Residential
206
DU
41
144
144
82
2,266
13C
Multi Family Dwelling
116
DU
104
49
50
23
751
13D
Multi Family Dwelling
116
DU
104
49
50
23
751
13E
Multi Family Dwelling
116
DU
104
49
50
23
751 4
TOTAL FOR
TAZ 1
532
810
793
529
13,088
3A
Single Family Detached Residential
Single Family Detached Residential
347
DU
69
243
243
139
3,817
36
450
DU
90
1 315
1 315
180
4,950
4B
Single Family Detached Residential
587
1 DU
117
411
1 411
235
6,457
2
13A
Muth Family Dwelling
117
DU
105
49
50
23
757
138
Multi Family Dwelling
117
DU
105
49
s0
23
757
14
Sin le Family Detached Residential
26
DU
5
18
18
10
286
17
State Park ross acresL
2,807
AC
9
53,754
TOTAL FOR
TAZ 2
80
0
70,778
26
Si le Family Detached Residential
62
. DU
!12
M592
682
3
4A
Si le Famil Detached Residential
784
DU
7
6,624
TOTAL FOR
I AZ 3
169
9,306
2C
Single Family Detached Residential
307
DU
61
215
215
123
3,377
5
Single Family Detached Residential
300
DU
60
210
120
3,300
F210
4
6
8
Single Family
CondominiumrTownhouse
Detached Residential
75
289
DU
DU
15
49
53
142
53
136
30
104
825
2,341
TOTAL FOR
TAZ 4
185
620
614
377
9,843
TOTAL FOR ALL ZONES
1,966
5,633
1 3,900
1 2,725 I
103,015
I
C
0 f'
r
T-6157— Dwelling Units
AC = Acres
U: Ucuebs=M\Exc N00636- 02.x1sjT 12 -2
Jv
IV
12 -3
Is-
' Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based
upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the
four project traffic analysis zones are graphically depicted on Exhibits 12 -A through
12 -D, respectively. It should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibits 12 -A
through 12 -D reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the project site.
This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential and
commercial opportunities.
12-4
j a�
O
m �I
Ni
N r >_
m a6 m zu
m
2
d N W
0 i
d r.N Q
rd >
z rQ0y
g N bs55
HILL $ J,ddO 6S LL F
7 > Q N I
♦ bL M3n9M yj
�• SAN MIGU0_ N
♦ R N N OOMN30 tl N
♦ OA
I
v,
a
v
VFOA }j '
d' 'OM 33H a f
la
O 6 I
I
I
I
M
M31MYB
°
M
2 � JEA
m ga
•uroMie �� € mi
4 RI
SIO MndWtln '3AY 3NMM1 g
°I
MV NU.Sm m�
x '3Atl YNY Y1Ntl5 i
n Uf r'
3Atl 3ONYM0 md
G q
1B LIOdM3N N m•
SUMS
SS-MS � G
2
� WI
W
�I
f
V
Z
z!
12 -5 �au
:n?f4
EiZ�
"X
�o
" a-
z�
a�
=rE
LLI 1-0
0
o
F.
ac
�o
"
o.
W
z
i
N
12 -6
eq �I
e
e`
0
0
0
f
12 -7
I
0
e le
I 36
'Qcl'N
ImO
IL
�Z
P
In
9
96 F
F 0.
V
O
d
Z
0
y --
,
0
1
t
N
F
12_8
%Pe
x�
vi
W�
m�
1
o
�i
WI
=i f
131
13. NEWPORT RIDGE
The proposed project consists of single and multi - family residential dwelling units and
commercial uses. These developments are located within the Sphere of Influence of
Newport Beach but were processed through the County of Orange. The developments
are generally located between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Pack
Coast Highway adjacent to Newport Coast Drive.
Proiect Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a
development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based
upon the speck land uses which have been planned for the proposed
development.
I Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 13 -1.
Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are
shown in Table 13 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of
approximately 35,519 trip -ends per day with 3,654 trips per hour during the AM
i
peak hour and 3,471 trips per hour during the PM peak hour.
Traffic Distribution
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the
site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the
proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was
determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community
and existing traffic volumes.
13 -1
j 3�-
TABLE 13 -1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITSZ
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Multi Family Dwelling
DU
0.42
0.43
0.20
6.47
Single Family Detached Residential
DU
0.20
0.70
0.70
0.40
11.00
Commercial
TSF
0.60
0.50
1.90
2.00
45.00
i +f1
' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates
2 DU = Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
U:\ UcJobS \00636\Exceh[00636-02.xisIT 13 -1
13 -2
133
Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based
upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the
three project traffic analysis zones are graphically depicted on Exhibits 13 -A
through 13 -C, respectively. It should be noted that the patterns shown on Exhibits
13 -A through 13 -C reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the project
site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent residential
and commercial opportunities.
13-4 P3 , p
TABLE 13 -2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
TAZ
PLANNING
AREA
I LAND USE
QUANTITY
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
1A
ISingle Family Detached Residential
93
DU
19
65
65
37
1,023
2
Single Family Detached Residential
147
DU
29
103
103
59
1,617
3
Single Family Detached Residential
138
DU
28
97
97
55
1,518
4
Single Family Detached Residential
125
DU
25
88
88
50
1,375
5
Multi Family Dwelling
100
DU
90
42
43
20
1
7
Multi Family Dwelling
63
DU
57
26
27
13
8
Multi Family Dwelling
112
DU
101
47
48
22
9
Multi Family Dwelling
112
DU
101
47
48
22
d4,633
11
Si le Famil Detached Residential
323
DU
65
226
226
129
12
Commercial
102.959
TSF
62
51
196
206
12
Sin le Famil Detached Residential
200
DU
34
98
94
72
TOTAL FOR
TAZ 1
611
890
1,035
685
,
F2
21
Single Family Detached Residential
350
DU
70
245
245
140
1 3,850
22
Sin le Family Detached Residential
705
DU
141
494
494
282
7,755
TOTAL FOR
TAZ 2
211 1
739
739
422
11,605
13
Multi Famil Dwaili
347
DU
312
146
149
69
2,245
3
14
Sin le Famil Detached Residential
26
DU
5
18
18
10
286
15
Multi Family Dwelling
547
DU
492
230
235
109
3,539
TOTAL FOR
TAZ 3 T
809
394
402
"1
61070
TOTAL FOR ALL ZONES
1,631
2,023
2,176
1,295
35,519
DU = Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
11:1UCJO6s\ooe3SEF ery00636- 02.z[sjT 13 -2
t
y'
�Jv�i CJ`
J
13 -3
X35
N
}
LU
Z
alr=mm
Vm
W6 Im
N
�F
Y�
i F
W
Z
i
1 C
1
O
i
Y
1
I
1
i
I�
R
13 -5
o f
i
z
ml
e�
o
mi
E
L
Nj
m!
zSp,�
Z.
6:
[3�
COAST
W
O
"S
i
N
SJN
a
r
N
O
O
rz D
Z ig
I—
a
W W
5 5 NaA
d
�J
uaoa
W e
J o
3Atl
3La31twvn
SAN MIGOEL
N
40,
\
3Atl
\
GOaN301C
\
3
h
o
ia�`
R1
m
'O033aO WV,
�
o
N
'�77dd
~ M3IAAtlG
O
8
z
EP
x
roa unarm
3ntl
3NIAaI
3Atl NLLSN1
e
3Atl VNV ViNVS M
z
i
�
H
W
'RAW 3 N"O
°
19 IVOd N
SSi1S
SSi15
J0
� '
bo
rr�
Pdtl
�y`�
P
13 -5
o f
i
z
ml
e�
o
mi
E
L
Nj
m!
zSp,�
Z.
6:
[3�
imNN
Vauz
ImOFWF
IL
am
Vj
IM6
M6
N
N
w
13-6
m
0
a
1-31
?MH
'Z�
< fOlf
d
', O� 0
W OC
W F'
IM go
�
so IL
0m
oe
Z
O
o.
W
a
ym
Q
H
13 -7
,�.
m
c3�
15. LOWER BAYVIEW SENIOR HOUSING
The proposed project consists of a senior housing development. The senior housing
development will accommodate approximately(.,15500 Welling units. The project is located
in the City of Newport Beach at the intersectio o Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive.
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a
development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based
upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the proposed
development.
Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 15 -1.
Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are
shown in Table 15 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate
approximately 600 trip -ends per day with 60 trips per hour during the AM peak hour
and 60 trips per hour during the PM peak hour.
Traffic Distribution
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the
site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the
proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was
determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community
and existing traffic volumes.
Trip distribution for this study has been based upon near -term conditions, based
upon those highway facilities which are in place. The trip distribution pattern for the
15-1
159
TABLE 15 -1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITS2
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN OUT
IN OUT
Elderly Residential
DU
0.10 0.30
0.30 0.10
4.00
' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates
2 DU = Dwelling Units
15 -2 jtb
TABLE 15 -2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE
UNITS'
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN OUT
IN OUT
lElderly Residential
1 15 45
45 15
600
' DU = Dwelling Units
U: 1UcJobs 100636\Excelu00636- 02.xls]T 15.2
15 -3 0
I
I
project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 15-A. It should be noted that the patterns
shown on Exhibit 15-A reflect potential origins /destinations of traffic to /from the
project site. This reflects the directionality of the project traffic to the adjacent
residential and commercial opportunities.
154
1
~o
im � g
LU
=m
O-
ZCl
W d
V! �
W_
Q
m
W
O
`y__
r
I
is -s
le
obi
W
0
cC.
G
0
C i
2
W
C7 i`
Lull
o
��3
16 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BONITA CANYON
AND NEWPORT COAST
The.proposed project consists of 436 apartment units. The project is located in the City
of Newport Beach at the intersection of Bonita Canyon Drive and Newport Coast Drive.
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is produced or attracted to a
development. The traffic generation for this project has been estimated, based
upon the speck land uses which have been planned for the proposed
development.
Project trip generation rates utilized in this study are included in Table 16 -1.
Both daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed project are
shown in Table 16 -2. The proposed development is projected to generate
approximately 2,821 trip -ends per day with 222 trips per hour during the AM peak
hour and 274 trips per hour during the PM peak hour.
Traffic Distribution
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the
project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the
site, the location of residential, commercial and recreational opportunities and the
proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic was
determined by evaluating existing land uses and highways within the community
and existing traffic volumes.
16 -1 `��
TABLE 16-1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
UNITSZ
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
I IN I OUT
I IN OUT
Apartments
DU
1 0.09 1 0.42
1 0.43 0.20
6.47
' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates
z DU = Dwelling Units
U:%UcJobs \00636 \Excel400636-02.xls]T 16-1
16 -2
7��
TABLE 16 -2
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
LAND USE
UNITS2
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN I OUT
IN I OUT
artments
DU
39 183
187 87
2821
2 DU = Dwelling Units
U1UcJobsX00636\Exoeh [00636- 02.xls]T 16.2
16 -3 X4(0
t6
MZ=
vj
W =
W p=
0:0
.o
Z0.
Z ~
a
MO
W
5
I
WL
V/
♦
k
r/
16 -5
,e
W
Q
f
a
0
r
C rz
Ww
a
W o
�i /
0
°a
G
z
r
Q$
Zo
W N
rZ
N �
uQi 7
¢O
Qf
� N
?v
Z LL
ga
6 F
V
0
0
N
w
ZI ,
Appendix C
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Okitsu & Associates
;ineen and Trangvnadon Plannen
4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
1
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based air Average Daily Traffic 2004 AMf
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION.• BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155
(Existiirg Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 Pelf
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJEC
PROJECTED
19,1 OF PROJECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
1
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
1032
10
5
1047
10
0
NoMbouud
32
528
5
11
544
5
0
Southbound
Easbound
1 1695
1 0
8
1703
17
3
Eastbound
3105
1 0
35
3140
31
1
Westhound
a
Westhound
0
1 0
0
0
0
0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION.• BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4155
(Existiirg Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2004 Pelf
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 26r 2001
541 1
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECTS
PROJECTED
I% OF PROJECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
836
g
876
9
2
Northbound
32
1135
1 1
0
1 1 4 6
11
1
Southbound
Easbound
1 1695
1 0
8
1703
17
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
Westhound
a
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 26r 2001
541 1
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295
(Existing Traffle Volumes Based oil Average Daily TraffTe 2003 AAO
® Project Trafic Is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
C� Project Traffic Is.estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295
(Existing Traffle Volumes Based on Average Daily Tra,(Jle 2003 P
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECTS
PROJECTED
I %OFPROJECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK.HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
1083
11
7
1101
11
0
Northbomd
1219
12
7
1238
12
0
Northbound
1114
11
1147
2
SouWwund
955
10
22
974
10
8
SouWboand
230
0
1
231
2
0
EesPoanad
415
0
1 0
415
4
0
westbound
® Project Trafic Is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
C� Project Traffic Is.estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & BIRCH STREET 4295
(Existing Traffle Volumes Based on Average Daily Tra,(Jle 2003 P
CProject Traffic is estimated to be less then 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 °% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
PRojECT. 4248, MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 25, 2001
�5b1
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECTS
PROJECTED
1% OF PROJECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
1219
12
7
1238
12
0
Northbound
955
10
9
974
10
8
SouWboand
378
0
5
383
4
4
EesOroasd
479
0
479
5
2
ound
Westbound
CProject Traffic is estimated to be less then 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 °% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
PRojECT. 4248, MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 25, 2001
�5b1
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BLVD. & NEWPORT PL.NON KARMEN AVE. 4285
(Existing Tra,{l c Volumes Based air Average Daily Trallic 2003 Alen
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BLVD. & NEWPORT PL.NON KARMEN AVE. 4285
(Existing Trafflc Volumes Based an Average Dagy TraJf a 200J PJW
2005
PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC
PROJECTED
1% OF PROJECTEU
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME VOLUME,
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
2105
21
8
2134
21
2
Northbound
612
6
9
627
6
0
Southbound
147
0
0
147
T
p
Ewibouna
1
218
0
0
218
2
1
Westbound
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BLVD. & NEWPORT PL.NON KARMEN AVE. 4285
(Existing Trafflc Volumes Based an Average Dagy TraJf a 200J PJW
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t% of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes.
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
I
4
DATE: JULY 26, 2005i
X51
2005
PEAK HOUR APPROVED PRO
PROJECTED
I%OFPROJECTEr
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
843
8
8
859
9
1 D
Northbound
995
10
7
1012
10
3
Soetirbuund
606
0
0
606
6
5
Eastbound
814
0
0
814
8
5
Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t% of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes.
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
I
4
DATE: JULY 26, 2005i
X51
I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WintedSpring 2004AM
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i % of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes.
O Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Four Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300
(Existing Tr4,Q?e Volumes Based oa Average WintedSpring 2004 P*
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECTS
PROJECTED
1%OF PROJECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAR HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
992
10
7
1009
10
0
Northbound
_
1431
14
30
1475
15
1
Southbound
1499
0
2
1501
15
0
Easthaund
1
1
1
wsatbouud
1 366
1 0
1 2
368
4
1
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i % of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes.
O Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Four Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD & CAMPUS DRIVE 4300
(Existing Tr4,Q?e Volumes Based oa Average WintedSpring 2004 P*
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
O Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 26, 2004
�9-1
2005
PEAR HOUR
APPROVED PROJECT3
PROJECTED
1% OF PROJECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAKHOUR
REGIONALGROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAKHOUR
PEAR HOUR
PEAR HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
1441
14
12
1467
15
4
Northbound
_
1966
20
11
1997
20
4
Southbound
917
0
16
933
9
0
Easdrouaa
1376
0
1
1377
14
4
Wes&onsd
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
O Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 26, 2004
�9-1
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVE/IRVINE AVENUE 4172
(Exisdng Traljle Volumes Based on Average Daffy TraIJ1e 2004 AM
® Project Traffie Is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Flour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater Oran 1% of Projected Peck Four Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Cap" UtOizadon (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVWIRVINE AVENUE 4172
(Exbft Tra ft Volumes Based on AverageDaUy TFaIIIe 2004 PAO
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECTS
PROJECTED
1 %. OF PROJECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
1750
1$
14
1782
18
1
Norbbound
237
2
11
250
3
0
Soudrbound
0
0
0
0
0
Eastbound
0 1
Wasthound
1166 1
0 1
4 1
1170
12
0
W""Uhd
® Project Traffie Is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Flour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater Oran 1% of Projected Peck Four Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Cap" UtOizadon (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DRIVWIRVINE AVENUE 4172
(Exbft Tra ft Volumes Based on AverageDaUy TFaIIIe 2004 PAO
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than t % of Projected Peak Four Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Uffkation (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
1/>3 f
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECT
PROJECTED
I%OFPROJECTEL
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL OROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAR HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
1106
1 1
28
1 1 4 5
11
5
Northbound
1147
11
4
1162
12
3
Southbound
0
0
0
0
0
Eastbound
0
Wasthound
2011
0
20
2031
20
0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than t % of Projected Peak Four Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Uffkation (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 26, 2005
1/>3 f
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: S. BRISTOL STREET & BIRCH STREET 4160
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daffy TrafJ7e 1003 AAA
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traft Volumes.
L—J Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. .
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: S.BRISTOL STREET & BIRCH STREET 4160
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Da*, Traffic 2003 P*
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJBCT5
PROJECTED
I% OF PROJECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
674
0
3
677
7
0
Northbound
620
0
19
639
6
0
Southbound
1902
0
12
1906
19
0
Eastbound
.4
0
0
0
0
0
Westbound
0
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traft Volumes.
L—J Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. .
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: S.BRISTOL STREET & BIRCH STREET 4160
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Da*, Traffic 2003 P*
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be lose than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour TreHlc Volumes.
O Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peale Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE.-JULY 26, 200
) 5A j
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJEC
PROJECTED
I %OFPROIECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
562
0
22
584
6
2
Northbound
1174
0
2
1176
12
3
Southbound
1536
0
12
1548
15
0
Eastbound
0
0
0
0
0
Wathound
0
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be lose than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour TreHlc Volumes.
O Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peale Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE.-JULY 26, 200
) 5A j
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175
(Exisling Tro is Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 A*
—� Project Tr ffic Is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Flour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Flour Treffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175
(Exiolug Traljlc Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PAO
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECTS
PROJECTED
I' /. OF PROJECTED
PROJECT'
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAR HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
1192
0
1
1193
12
0
Northbound
259
0
8
267
3
0
Southbound
0
0
0
0
0
Eastbound
1 o
1
1
2197
1 0
14
2211
1 22
1
Westbound
—� Project Tr ffic Is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Flour Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Flour Treffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. BRISTOL STREET NORTH & BIRCH STREET 4175
(Exiolug Traljlc Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PAO
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak How Treffle Volumes.
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater Man 1 °% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysts Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE.JULY 26? 201
,55
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECTS
PROJECTED
IXOFPRO
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GRO WTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAR HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
474
0
12
486
5
2
Northbound
1573
0
1
1574
16
3
Southbound
O
0
0
0
0
EaaPoound
0
2570
0
1 3
2573
26
4
westbound
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than t % of Projected Peak How Treffle Volumes.
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater Man 1 °% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysts Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE.JULY 26? 201
,55
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE RD(E -VI) & MACARTHUR BLVD(N -S) 4275
(Existing Traf jie Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffle 2001 AM
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peek Hour Traffic Volumes.
C� Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE RD(E -V) & MACARTHUR BLVD(N -S) 4275
(Existing Traf jie Volumes Based on Average Daily TrafJte 2002 PAO
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECT
PROJECTED
1% O TED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTTON
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
2259
23
7
2289
23
1
Northbound
476
5
12
493
5
1
Southbound
1917
19
31
1967
20
1 1
Eastbound
1
1
1
1432
14
5
Eutbound
1 1334
13
45
1392
14
0
Westbound
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peek Hour Traffic Volumes.
C� Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required.
I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. JAMBOREE RD(E -V) & MACARTHUR BLVD(N -S) 4275
(Existing Traf jie Volumes Based on Average Daily TrafJte 2002 PAO
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Four Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE:JULY 26, 2001
`.S(D
2005
PEAK HOUR
APPROVED PROJECT
PROJECTED
1% OF PROJEC
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
1007
10
1
1018
10
5
Northbound
2132
21
23
2176
22
6
Southbound
1379
14
39
1432
14
5
Eutbound
1856
19
30
1905
19
0
Westbound
® Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Four Traffic Volumes.
Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE:JULY 26, 2001
`.S(D
1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION. CAMPUS DRIVE & VON KARMAN AVENUE 4302
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traf fle 2002 AAn
Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Pear Hour Traffic Volumes.
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Pear Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE & VON KARMAN AVENUE 4302
(Existing Trafflc Volumes Based on Average Daily Tra lc 2602 P*
2005
PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT
PROJECTED
I%OFPROJBCTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL OROWTH PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
679
0
0
679
7
0
Northbound
537
0
0
537
5
0
Southbound
615
0
0
615
6
0
Eastbound
1
660
0
0
660
7
2
wesmound
Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Pear Hour Traffic Volumes.
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Pear Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required.
I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE & VON KARMAN AVENUE 4302
(Existing Trafflc Volumes Based on Average Daily Tra lc 2602 P*
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less then 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
0 Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utfifzation (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 26, 200
151
2005
PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT
PROJECTED
1 %OFPROJECTED
PROJECT
APPROACH
PEAK HOUR
REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
PEAK HOUR
DIRECTION
VOLUME
VOLUME VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
669
0
0
669
7
2
Northbound
1176
0
0
1176
12
2
Southbound
931
0
0
931
9
2
Eastbound
985
0
0
985
10
7
westbound
0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less then 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
0 Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Intersection Capacity Utfifzation (ICU) Analysis Is required.
PROJECT: 4248 MARTINGALE WAY
DATE: JULY 26, 200
151
Appendix D
Capacity Analysis - Existing + Approved + Project
Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
Qineen and Tran kvrrario r Planers Traffic Phasing Ordinance
15(�
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS (OF
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH 8 CAMPUS DRIVE I IRVINE AVE
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4155
EXISTING PROPOSED 2005 PK HR , REGIONAL COMMITTED r PROJECTED . PROJECT PROJECT V /C'
Movement I Lane Capacity Lane C I Volume 12005 VIC Ratioi GROWTH I PROJECT j VIC Ratio w/o I Volume I Ratio I
�., , , Volume , Volume , Project Vol
NL ,
--------- --- j--- ------- --- -!----- - - - - -- !- -- -- - -- — t-------------- 1---- -------- L------------ —J ------- -- - - -a
I NT I i I 871 1 1 9 I 5
' 8000 ' - -' 0.129 -- - - - - -- 0.131 ' ' 0.131 '
NR 161 ' ' - -_2 ____ —' ___ —_
t-------------- —__________ t---- — -------- a____________ t-------------- a__— ----------- t--- - --------- L_________ ____ _ -----------
SL I 1600 I I 138 I 0.086 ( 1 1 3 I 0.089 I I 0.089
ST 4800 ! 390 0.081 4 I 8 0.064 1 I 0.084
k--- ---- - ----- -- -------- t ----------------- -------- -t ------ - - ---i — -- f--- ----- -- V-- ------- - -- t ------ ------
+ -- —i
j SR j I I I I 1 i I I I
r___•______—_________________ r___—_____—__ 1_•__—_____•___ r_________—___ r________—____ r.__—_____—__ r_______ _•_____r---- ____- _T_-- _— _.__ -_ry
I EL I I 1 1161 i 1 I 9 I ! I I
�----- — ------- j 6400 �--------- — --- j - ---- ---- -- -j 0.428 j — - - ------ j - -- j 0.430 j---- ---- -- j 0.430 1
ET 1567 I
t---- ------- --- --------------A------------- a-------------- t------------ -- --- ------- ----- t-- --- --- --- ------ ---- 1- --- ---- -- 1- ------ -- ---I
ER 1 3200 I I 363 I 0.113 I 1 25 I 0.121 I I 0.121
4 ---- — ----- -- r. ---- W --- --, t___—_____—_—____—. u—__-- __— a— �_.____— t-- �_�— _-- ______a
I WL I I I I I I I I I I
-- -------------- a ------------ - F ------------ —+— ----- -- --- k-------------- +— --- — ------- h -- — F ------ -- I
I WT I I I I I I I I I I
I WR
'EXISTINGI.C.U. 1 0.644 1 '
t----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---- -- - - -- t -- — --------- t-------- ---- -L---- -- ---- L-- --- - - ----
(EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.650 I I I
• __— _•_ - -_ _ _ ____ ___________— ____— __.___ —_ —_
_ —__ _ ___—______—_____--__----- __— _L— __________— !._ - - -� —. 0.650
,EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED+ PROJECT I.C.U. 7
aProjected + project troffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic LC-U. wig be greater Cyan D,90
Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. w/systams Improvement will be less than or ecpwl 100.90
Projected + project traffic LC.U, wfth project improvement will be tens than LCU. without project
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
7/20/2005, 11:12 AM
l
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS n�ULn9Pt p, m
F A7
V
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & CAMPUS DRIVE
SCENARIO: 2006 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4153
1 I I I I I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1 1 1
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXISTING PK EXISTING V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Rallo w/o PROJECT PROJECT V!C
I I Lam Capacity I Lane Capacity I HR Volume I Ratio 1 Volume 1 Volume I Project VCI ( Volume I Rath I
t-- ---- - --- -- j -- ---- --- --- --t- - - -- -- t - - t-------------- t ------------ - t-- --- - ------ t -------------- t ---- -- ------ t- ------------ I
NL .
------------ — L— --------- -- L._-_—_ ... __J ----- — ------ I.__ ___ __ ___ _ ___ i__ --- _ ------ I-------------- --------- - --- ------ — ------ J"--- --------
)
1 NT I I I 655 I i 7 I 26 I I 1 I
8000 - -- 0.705 0.110 0.110
--- - NR _____.� r ________ —r___ -181 ____� I____ 2 ______r______ 6______1 r________ ______I 1
------------ — ------- — --- -- I.--______--_ --------- __G ----------- __.I ---- __ ----- _ __________.----- ------- I--------- ---
.�.._— __— ______I
j SL ( 1600 I 1 210 I 0.131 j 2 I 1 0.133 I 1 0.133 j
ST 4800 925 I 0.193 I 9 I 0.195 1 0.195
F------- - -- ---- — ------ — t ------- . F_ ---------- _ t—__ -------- * --- _____ --- t-__—_______. r___------- — ----- — ----
1
SR ( i 1 I I I 1 I 1 I
— -------- --_ r__—__—____— r ---- — -------- r__—___--___ r--------- — --- r_—_____—____ r-------- — ---- r---------- -- r_— ----- — ----
r
1 EL ( 1 I 501 I I I 2 1 1 1 I
— — - -j 6400 t -- —j -- ----- - -- - -j 0.212 j— — -- t-- -- ---- -- ---j 0.213 j---- ------ --j 0.213 j
ET 858 2
�--- ----- - - ------- - ----- i ---------- - A---- -------
1 -__ -1
1 ER I 3200 1 1 336 1 0.105 I j 4 1 0.106 j 1 0.106 j
------- — _ --- J_— __— -----
_..J
1 WL I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I
h-- - +-- --- - ----- F -- - -+--- ------ h-- ---------- +-------------- h- ----------- +-- -------- - -- --- ----
i WT
1 WR I I I I I I I I I I
-- -------- ---- -- -- --- ----- - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- ---- --- --- ---- -- -- --- - --- �- --
REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. j 0.455 I I
__--__--- -------- --___—__________________—____________________ _______________-- ! -------- -----
REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U. 0.455
❑X Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.96
Projected + project bafOC I.C.U. SAO be greater than 0.90
Projected + project tralBe I.C.U. w/systems Improvement will be lass than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project M, I.C.U. with project Improvement will be less then I.C.U. without project
Descrlption of system Improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
7/2012005, 11:12 AM I Io a
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS a F n � 4� Ro 4.
y
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BLVD & BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBEJ R: 4295
I_ r- I-------------- T- f -------------- REGIONAL I COMMITTED r PROJECTED i_ -_ -- ---- - - - -_- - - - -�
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED' 2005 PK HR '2005 WC Ratio GROWTH PROJECT V1C Ratio PROJECT PROJECTVIC,
I I Lane Capacity I Lane Capacity I Volume I I I I I Volume I Ratio I
Volume Volume Pmjed Vol
j--- - --- ----- i ----------- t------------ t----------- --- j-------- ------t----- --- - - -t — — t— — t---- - -----t- - - -- ------ -t
' NL ' 1800 1 132 0.082 ' 1 ' 1 ' 0.084 J
' 0.084
l_ — ---- -------- --- ----- ----- 1- -------- -- - - -L -- - - -- -- - ----- ---- -- -------- - - - -- - ---- - - - - --
j NT I 4800 I I 700 I 0.146 I I 6 I 0.148 I 1 0.148 1
-------------- a--- -- -------- j-------------- a------------ -- j ---------- -- a -- — j— -- — ------- •---- I----- - - - - -- — — I
j SL j two j j 42 j 0.025 j 0 j j 0.026 i j 0.026 j
-- --- -- --- ---' --------- -------------- — --- '— ------- — ---- '- ------------ ------ -----; ------- -- --- '----- -- ------ --- --- ---- --- — ------- --
i ST I I I 967 I 10 I 12 I I 1 I I
h — - -- i 6400 h--------- — --- i--- ------- ---i 0.166 F — ° —f -- — 1 0.113 f— ° -- i 0173 j
j SR j i j 105 I I 1 I t0 I 1 t I I
r ----- ________________________ r___-._._.-__— r----- — ------- r -------------- r------- -- --- r_--___--__ r_— -----------
r--- ___-- _r__--- -____7
I EL I I 32 I i I 1 I I I I
I —__ —ET 4800 154 - -_I 0.046 0.048 r— — — � 0.048 I
l_________ _ __ __J l_- ---------- L ------- — ---- I I__— ----- — ---- t----------- —J
1 ER I I I 44 I I I I I f I
----------- -•_ L ----- --- --- J--------------- L --------- -___J---- ------- 1.--_--__._ J-._...... - ... L-- ___-- ___A__- ---- - ----
l
WL 1600 140 0.088 ! I i 0.058 0.088
-- ------- -i---- -------- —f - -- — + -- - -i
j WT j 3200 j j 218 j 0.088 1 I 1 0.068 j j 0.068 j
I WR 1 N.S. I I 57 t I 1 I I I I
EXISTING I.C.U. ' 0.385 ' ' ' '
_— ------------------------------- —t ------------- _1_____-- --- —_L ----- — ----- —1___.-________.i ---- — ----- WJ----------
EXISTING+ REG GROWTH +COMMITTED WIO PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.392
--------------- --_-- -------------- ---- ---- — ----- --_—__—_—__-- ---- — ----------- --_—_ _________— ----------
EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U. 0.392
Projected + project traffic I.G.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
❑ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvement will be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
712612005,2:29 PM 1(01
1 ps vo .
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS F o
a
I
1
I
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BLVD 8 BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO•. 2005 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4285
r--- -------- -_- EXISTING r PROPOSED 1- -2005 PK FBi- r- - - - - -- Reflo, REGIONAL ,COMMITTED , PROJECTED, PROJECT -PROJECT V /C,
Movement I Lane Capacity[ Lane Capacity I Volume 12005 V1C Ratio) GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Rallo w/o 1 Volume I Ratio I
Volume Volume Project Vol
r-------------- t------- r------ - - - - -i ------------' r ------------- t------------ F------- - - - --r - ___ i----------- t------- - - - - -j
---
'
NIL ' 1500 ' 55 1 0.034 1 1 0.035 ' 0.035 '
-------- --- _.— ____ —__ —._ -- ---------- --------- L ------ ----. J----- ------- 1------ — ---- — J__— ----- -- _�.--------- - --- --- --- — -----
j
NT I 4800 1 I 958 I 0.199 I 10 I 7 I 0.203 1 1 0.203 I
----------- — _1_ —__ ____- _F— __________ — ______ .__-- _f, --------- — ---
N S 208
L— ------------ J-------------- -------------- --- ----------- F------ ------ , I -_— ----------- F--- — ------- — --- ------ — --- f--------- — --- .-- .- - - - - --
SL I 1800 I I 135 I 0.084 I 1 I I 0.085 I I O.Oe5
- ------------ J____--_______ L-- ----- ---._ J___._.----___ L_-_- --- ----- -----
__- __J- _________- _�__- .. -_ -__J
I ST I I I 792 I I e I 8 I I 4 I I
h— ------- - --i 6400 f- ------ -- --- -i-- -- -- - - -I 0.128 h------- ° --- f------ - - - - -i 0.131 f----------- --i o.132 j
I SR I I I 28 I I o I 1 I I 4 I I
r— ----- - -__ _----------- — T -------------- i______— _____— r_— ___ - - -__ _- .---- .- _.-- r_____ —___ -- -- ---------- T--- ____ - -� ------- - - - - -r
I EL I i I 110 I 1 I 5 I I 3 I I
-------------- - - -- j f ----------- -- i --- -- ----- — ------- - - - - -1 I
ET 4800 194 0.079 , 1 0.080 1 0.081
L ----- — ------- J L— -------- — .- 1 ---- -- ------- I L --------- --- 1 ----- -- - - --- 1
ER I I I 74 I I I I I I I
--.L - J - - L -- _J_ _- - ------------ A --- 1 A -1
I I I 1 I I I I
, WL , 1800 , 193 , 0.121 1 1 1 0.121 , , 0.121 ,
F--- - - - - --- i— -- + -- - -- ---------- F-- ------- -- ------- ---F----- - -- - -- +— ---- F----------- --- +-- -- - --- --1
j WT j 3200 i i 234 j 0.073 i ( I 0.073 j 2 j 0.074 j
1 WR I N.S. I I 52
0.483
+ REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
0.488 1 1 1
1
,EXISTING +REG GROWTH *COMMITTED+ PROJECT I.C.U. 0.489
L— --------- ------ ---- — ----------- -- ---- — ----------------- --- — ----------- — ------------------- -- -------------------- — ------- - -J
i
} FX Protected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1
Projected + project R.M. I.C.U. wlsystems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
0 Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvement will be less than I.C.U. wlMOUt project
I Description of system im
yste provemeM:
i
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way- Restaurant
i
7/2612005,2:32 PM
`Aywhnp'
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
I J �
j °tlLfnw+a>
INTERSECTION: MAC ARTHUR BLVD a VON KARMAN
i
SCENARIO: 2005 + GROWTH + APP +PROD TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
} EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4205
i
1
i
1
f
i
}
s
i I I I I REGIONAL I COMMITTED! PROJECTED I I I
Movement EXISTING ' PROPOSED ' 2005 PK HR '2005 V/C Ratio GROWTH PROJECT V!C Ratio w/o PROJECT PROJECT VIC'
Lane Capacity I Lane Capacity I Volume I I I 1 I Volume I Ratio 1
r Volume Volume r Project Vol
t------ — ------ 1----- — ---- - -t -------------- i ----- ---------t----- -- - -- - -1 -------------- t--------- ----- t- --------- -- h------ ------ t — -- -1
Nt. 1600 ' ' 122 ' 0.077 ' 1 ' ' 0077 ' 1 ' 0.078
L '
-- - -------------- 1--------------- t------------- j-------- - - - - -- ------------- ?------------ l------- - - - - -?
NT 1 4800 I I 1148 1 0.239 I 11 1 7 I 0.243 1 1 1 0.243
- - -- , r r
----- R-- _-- �.____. NS — __`--------- — --- .1_-------------- {-------------- 1_._— ----- — --- t. —___ -- —}.._—_.__— __.r ------ — ---- 7 -------------- 1
8 1
G----- — ------- a--------- ---- t-------------- --------------- t------------ — ---- — ----- — __i------------- -- ---------- .i__— __.__ —_ I.-- __.— ____ - --
j SL j 1600 j j 41 j 0.026 j o j j 0.026 j j 0.026 j
ST 4800 339 1 0.077 1 3 I 9 1 0.073 0.073 1
t--------- - --- i---- - ----- --- t --------------- - --------- -- t ------- - --- - i --------------- t---- -------- i- ----- ----- t ---- -- ------
+ - -- - -i
j SR j NS I I 232 I 1 2 I I 1 1 1
r____—____—__ r_-_—__--___ r_-_- ----- — --- 1--------------- r__-____---_—_ 1— ------------- r ----- —_ ------ r__-___-_----- _r- ---- — ------- r---- — ---- ._ —r
EL I 1600 1 1 35 1 0.022 1 1 1 0.022 1 1 0.022
----- — ---- — j-- --- -- -- - -- C---- ----- - - - --j - -------- ----- ----- -- -- -- -j -------------- ------ - -- -- j -- — °�-------- -- --- --------- -- -j
ET 3200 82 0.026 1 0.026 0.026
t— -- ----- ------- t------ -- ----- ---- ----- ----- j--- -- --- - - -- -- - - -- ---- ---- 1--- ---- -- -----1- ---- ------ --------------
1 ER I NS 1 1 30 I 1 1 I I I I
L -------- J ------- - ------ L__-___-____ J--------------- L ------------ -J_ ------------ - L ---------- --_ J___- ----------
l_..___- ______A_.__- ___...1
f I I I 1 I I 1 I f I
WL 3200 88 0.021 0.021 0.021
--------------- t-------------- + -------------- }------ — ------ .F ------- - -_ -1
j WT j 1600 j j 142 j 0.089 I 1 I 0.089 j 1 j 0.089 j
1 WR I NS I I 8 I 1 1 1 I I I
r-- ------ - - --- r-- ------ ---- --j- ----- - - ----- �- - - ---- ..... q....... — j-- -- -•-- --t- ---- -- --- --j
'EXISTING I.C.U. ' 0.311 ' ' ' ' 1 '
- - - - -- - -- - -- - -- -- t
----------- L ------------- L -- -----• -- --- J - ----- ------- 1--- -- -- - ---
i - - 1
EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W10 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.316 I I
+ REGGROWTH+ COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.0
OProjected + project eafflc I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projeded + project traffic I.C.U. W ystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. with project improvement will be less than I.C.U. wilhoul project
Description of system improvement
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
0.316
7/2012005,11:14 AM `� —
1YY
t
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
U 0
c
+yruY�
INTERSECTION: MAC ARTHUR BLVD 8 VON KARMAN
SCENARIO: 2005 + GROWTH + APPROVED TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4285
1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 2005 PK HR I I REGIONAL r COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT V /C'
i Movement I Lane Capacity I Lane Capacity I Volume 12005 V/C Rados GROWTH I PROJECT � VIC Ratio w!o I Volume I Ratio I
Volume . Volume , Project Vol ,
-_____ —___ ____________� ------ — ______ -__ —__ ___— _._____ ____ -_____ _________ - -, _____ __— _- _ —_ - -_,
r -- t- r- t- r- t- -t -- -r- r - - -- -t- 1
' NL I'I 1600 ' ' 48 ' 0.030 ' 0 ' ' 0.030 5 0.033
------------ _1_— --- — ---- _L__- ______ -__ ------ — --- — __�. ------ -- ---- J -------- - -- 1___— _________�_____ —_ —_J
NT I 4800 1 1 625 I 0.130 ( 6 I 8 I 0.133 - - -I 5 I 0.134 I
i _ , , , , -r
NR NS 170 2 0
--------------- - ----- ----- --------------- _- ----------- r --- - ------- - 4-- ------------ -- ---- - ----
�
i SL I 1600 I I 33 1 0.020 1 0 I I 0.021 i 1 0.021 1
ST 4800 1 890 0.186 9 7 0.189 3 1 0.189 1
r------- ----- i----- ------- r-------------- --- ------- -- r ----- - ---- - -- --- - ------ --+ --- - ---- --- r--- ---- ---- + ----------- - -i
i SR i NS i 1 72 I I 1
I
------- ------ ------- — ------ r__—___________— -------- _--- r____ ----- - --
r_____
EL 1 1600 I 1 160 1 0.100 1
------ - - ---- -- ------ ----
r -'-'- ET---- 3200 - -r -- 215 r -- 0.067
r-------------a-------------1-------------1------------L------------1-
ER I NS 1 1 231 I
i i— _______— _— i_______ —_ i -------- ______I -------- —___i
WL 3200 649 0.203
WT 1 1600 I 1 142 i 0.069 i
I WR I NS I I 23 I I
_____-:- ----------- - ------ ___r------- - - -�_ -_
'EXISTING I.C.U. ' 0.485 '
1EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
!EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U.
1 0.100 1 1 0.100
r----------- - --1- -- 0.067 ----1- - - -- Z--- --T- -___.
0.068
L--------- -J----- -- -------1------- - - ---1 - --
I I I 3 I
0203 1 1 0.203
1 1 0.089 i 5 i 0.092
I I I i
FX Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + Project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvement will be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
0.489 1
0.493
7/20/2005,11:14 Am `(
7
i
I
1
t
I
I
I
1
tAywP
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
F
J
n +L[enY'px
INTERSECTION. MACARTHUR & CAMPUS
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER 4380
t ---- ---- -----r--- ------ -- ---f ---------- T--- -- -- ---- i- -- -- -- ------ r------------ T------------- r------ - - - - -I
EXISTING PROPOSED' 2005 PK HR' REGIOt4At COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECTVX,
Movement j Lane Capacity I Lane Capacity I Volume I 2005 V/C Ratio GROWTH i PROJECT V/C Ratio w/o I Volume I Ratio I
Volume Volume Project Vol r
-------------- --------------- - -- t--- -- ---- -- -t---- --------- t -- ___F -- — t-- -------- ---t- ------ — t----- --------
' NL ' 1600 ' ' 55 ' 0.034 ' t ' 0.034 0.034 '
-- --------- -� -- ------ -- --- L--- -- - - -1 __ ___L------ ------ !--- ---- - -- 1------------ J -- --- ------ ---- l ------ - ------- _ -- -------
!
NT I 6400 I I 874 1 0.137 1 9 I 7 I 0.139 I 1 0.139 I
r r _
t_____ NR____.I - -_ 1600 -- �----- —______ �_— --------- __ r__ ---- — ----- T ---- _ ---- — __t ---- — -------- .r_ —_o_�o ___ _r______________r_..___— __.___I
63 0.039 1
t______________ ------- - -- I—______—__ a_-- ----- — ---- 4—__— --------- __ ----------- 1------- --_-- 4.------ _— ___t ------------- 4 ----- - - - ---
SL 1 1600 I I 255 I 0.159 ! 3 I I 0.161 I 1 0.161 1
ST 6400 957 I 0.150 I 10 I 22 I 0155 I 1 0.155 1
t--------- — --- i ---- ----- - -1-- ---- -- i--------------- t--- -------- ------ ------- t------- -- --- t----- ------ f----------- — +-- -- -- - --- -i
i SR i 1600 i i 219 i 0.137 i 2 ; 9 i 0.144 I I I
r._—____—_- 1_—_— -------- r____ --- ._— r_—__—_-- r__—___--_ r-- ---------- r_______.--__ r_—.----------
r_ _____________r_____— _______�
EL 1 3200 I 1 571 .I 0.178 I 1 1 1 0.179 I i 0.179
ET 4800 845 0.176 1 0.176 1 0.176
L- ---- ---- -- J -- ----- -- t— - - -� - - -- — t------ - -- -------------- 1- -------- -- -- i------- -•--- -1 -- --- ---- ----- --- - -- t
ER I N.S. I I 83 I I 1 I I { I
L------_.-- J_ -------- —__— L --- — -------- J____— ------- _ L ------- —.--_J---- --------- L --- -- ------- A---- —_ --- _t-------- - --- ------- - -!
I I I i I I I I I
, WL , 3200 , , 72 , 0.023 , 1 1 0.023 , 0.023
F-- ---- — ---- {-_—._— ------- +------------- ___---- t -------- — ---- .(___------ ______}-------- — ---- . t._-- --------- }--- — --------- -- --------- , —_t
i WT i 4800 i i 249 i 0.052 i ; 2 ' 0.052 1 1 0.052 I.
I WR I NS I I 45 I I I I I I {
I.C.U.
+REG GROWTH+
0.494
IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
+REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U.
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
M Pr jWed + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Pmjeded + prpjad tragic LC.U. w/systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvement will be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system Improvement
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
0.498 1
0.498
7120/2005, 11:15 AM 1 b ✓
1Y�
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS cis
F � '
n -
J
niL M,4My�
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR & CAMPUS
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4300
------------- i------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- --------------- i-------------- r- -- -- -- ------ 1 - -- --- --- --- r------ - - - - -- - -- r_- __- --------
�
REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECTV/C'
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED ' 2005 PK HR '2005 V/C Rado GROWTH I PROJECT VIC Relic w/o
i 1 Lane Capacity i Lane Capacity I volume ( I Volume I Volume I Project Vd 1 Volume 1 Rath 1
r------------ 1-------------- i-------------- i------------- i.------ - - - - -- --- - - - - -- r - - -t - i - - - - -- -r -- - -i
' NL ' 1600 ' 163 0.102 2 ' 0.103 ' 0.103
-------------- �__— _- -------- -- _-------- _-- -._. —_ ------------ _---.....—.--- -- --- — 4 ---- — --- — ---- 1---- — ----- -- -- ___.- ___ -. -1
1 NT ( 6400 .1 I 1261 1 0.197 1 13 1 12 1 0.201 1 1 0.201 1
_ _ _ _
�--- NR--- -- j- ----- 1soo ---�- ----- ----- T -- 77---- - -� - -- 0.011---- T --- -o - ---- t------- -- r---------- a.o11-- T----- --- ---
-r -- 0.011 ---I
t------- ---- a- - - -- -- ----- 4------ .- ---= -------------- r--------- -- 1 — — l--- - --- - -- - ----- - -- - -t -- -- =- -- --- - ----1
SL ( 1600 I 1 147 I 0.092 1 1 1 0.093 i 0.093
1 ST 6400 I 1 1160 0.181 12 9 1 0.165 I 0.185 1
i----------- i------------ r----------t---------- t------------- i----- ---- --t---- ------- ---- -- - - ----
i SR i 1600 i i 659 i 0Al2 i 7 i 2 i 0.417 i i OA17 i
r__-- -------- Y______--- ---- r__— ----- —__ Y -------------- -- ----------- 1--- --------- r. ----- — ----- Y— ------- — --- r ------------- —
1 EL 1 3200 1 1 329 1 0.103 1 1 14 1 0.107 1 1 0.107 1
r--- ET----- ----- 460o--- -t------- ---- - --- -- -asa- - --r -- o. 1oz--- j------------ r---- 2----- 7----------- ---- t- --- -- -- -- T--o.to2-- -1
' ' 1 0.102
t--- -- - - - - -- -------------- t----------- J------------- r-------------------------- L ----------- J-------- -- -- 1- -- -- ----- -1-- ----- -----1
1 ER 1 N.S. I 1 99 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1....—._.____ J ............... L -------------- J ------- — ------ L___-_--_-- J_------- ---_
va 3200 13
6 0.043 O.D43 ! I 0.043 !
F_.-- ----- _._ i___________—__ t__----__ __ }______________t___._— .______ 1—___._..—__. t__—.--.--------..._. __- .- F.__.____.___.. --- ._- - - - -_I
i WT i 4800 i i 1119 ; 0.233 i i i 0.233 i i 0.233 i
I WR I NS I I 121 I I I I I I I
r____.______.____________:____-___._ _____________r___________t_____ .- -------- -- ---- - .�.__�
'EXISTINGI.C.U. ' 0.746
r-- ---- -- - - -- -- - -- - -- -- - L---- - - -_J_ - -- L---- -- ---- -- 1-- ------- - - - -1- - -1- - --1
(EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.753 I 1 1
-------------------------------------------------- -- ---- -- ---- -- -------= -- - - -- - -- -= -- 7 -- -
+ REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U. 0.753
FX Protected + pro(eot traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
E] Projected + projed traffic I.C.U. w/systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
E] Projected + pmlect traffic I.C.U. with project Improvement will be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
7/20/2005, 11:15 AM ` G �p
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
J
� +r�4fis
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS OR 1 IRVINE AVE
SCENARK2 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4112
- -_ - - -_
REGI
EXISTING PROPOSED 2005 PK HR . ONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT V/C'
Movement I Lane Capacity I Lane Capacity I Volume 12005 V/C Rafio� GROWTH PROJECT VPr Ratio w/o Volume 1 Ratio 1
Volume , Volume Project Vol
f--- ---- -- ---j - -- -- ---- --I--- -- -- - -1 ° -- - r ° -- - t- -- ---- ---- - -t - -- -- t---- ------ -t--- --- - -----j -_ ---- ---1
' NL ' 3200 ' 408 0.128 4 ' 1 ' 0.129 ' ' 0.129
--------- -�-- --- - - - --- �- - - �---- ------ -- L -- --- ---- -� - -- 1- - -� - ------ ---- L---- --- -- - - -- �-- ---- -- - --- -!
NT I 4600 I i 1342 1 0.280 I 13 I 13 I 0.285 1 I 0.285 1
L---- - ----- -- a-- --- - -------- L- ------------ a------- - - -- ------ -- - - -- -____ L-- ----- --- --= ------- - --- -!
I SL
ST 6400 I I 185 0.029 10 0.030 0.030
t--- --------- t - -- t- --- ----- ---- t---- -------- t- -- t -- - t - °t - -- t- -- ----- - ---t-- - t
i SR i 3200 i i 52 i 0.016 i i 1 i 0.016 i i 0.016 i
r______________ n_ ---- _ ----- —_ r ---- —_______ r___ ..... _—__ r.__—_____ v--- — ----- ___ r________— Y. --- _ ------ — r --- — ---- -- v ------- - -_.r
1 EL I I I I ! I I I I I
j- - -- } ------------ t----------- j--------------- j- ----- --- j----- ------- -f-- - - - --- -T - -- -1
ET
1----- ---- - -J•-- ----------- t------- - ---- - ---- - -- - -- L - - -- ----- -- ----- --L- ------ --- --- ------- ---- --L------ ---- -1---- ---- ---!
I ER I I I I 1 I I I I 1
J_ --- —__— ---- L ---------- —__ J___.__..___ 3_..____._—. A_ --- —_ ------ L— ----- _..____ A___ ._____L- _ --- — ------
A.____.____J
WL 1600 f 252 f 0.158 ! 2 i 0.159 ` 0.159
I WT I I t 840 I I i 2 I I -_ I I
'__- •___-- -•_ --� 6400 r- •- _•_-- _-- •'-- •--- _'_ ----. 0.143 ,------ ___--- r-- _- __•____• - -� 0.143 . - -. -__ 0.743
! WR ( ! I 74 I ! ! I ! I I
(EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I,C.U. 1 0.428
S__.— -------------------------------- ____ --- M_— -------- _ ---- — ______________________S______
REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U. 0.428
------------ — --- — ------- __-- ---------------- — _ ------ _ -------- — J_ -------- _
rX Projected +project traffic I.C.U. Will Be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected+ project traffic I.C.V. will be greater than 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.V. w /systems imProvamerd will he less than or equal to 0.90
Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvement will be teas than LC.U. wiMM project
Description of system Improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way _ Restaurant
7/20/2005, 11:16 AM \ (p�
4
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS F v
U
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH & CAMPUS DR / IRVINE AVE
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4172
L-------------- 1--------- ___ F ------------ _'_ -------------- t--- _ --------- .r_REGIONAL J COMMITTED rPROJECTED�__________� ---------
t
EMTING PROPOSED ' 2005 PK HR ' PROJECT PROJECT V /C'
Movamam 1 Lane Capacity I Lane Capacity ) Volume 12W WC Ratio! GROWTH I PROJECT j VIC Ratio w/o I Volume I Ratio 1
Volume I Volume Project Vol
t-- --- -- -- - -- t -- - j---- -- - - - --- 1 -- - F----------- t------------- t------------ t------ --- -j-------- ---- -t- ---- - -----t
' NL ' 3200 375 0.117 4 10 0.121 1 1' 0.121
__ '
______________ _____________ L ______________ _____________ _____________� . �
____— _-- ______ ________—______________ ___ _! _____________A— __________�
1 NT 1 4800 I 1 731 I 0.152 1 7 I 18 ( 0.158 I ( 0.158 i
L______ ______ ---- - -------- _ ______________ ___ --------- t------------- ----------
t_— ________�_____ —____t
I SL I 1 I I I
1 ST I 5400 1 I 938 I 0.147 I 2 0.147 0.147
j- -- +------------ j---------- -- - +----- ---- --- -j-- ---------- - - F-- ----- ----- +-- -- - - ---- h- -- -+ -- -1
i SR i 3200 i i 209 ; 0.085 i i 2 j 0.066 i j 0.066 j
r____ -------- r____________ r_— ---------- r___________ r___ ----- _ ---
I EL I I I 1 I I i I I I
�--- - --------- j - -- j--- -- - - -- -T -- -- j-- --- -- -- ----j -------------- - T--- - - -- - -t
ET r
L___ --------- J__ ------------ t__________ ____L ---------- ___l_ ----- _----- ---------- __- L ------ _ ----- 1----- ___ --- L----- _- --- _1__________1
,
I ER I I u_
I I I I I I 1 i
---------- _— �____,� 0. 124 _____•_ ____ _ ___________•_____________x___
I I 1600 I 1 I 0.124 I I I I 1 0.124
F--- - - - - --- -- F - - F - + - -F -- ----- - - -- -- -- --- --- --- i- ------- - --- -j
wr I I I 1740 I I 1 20 t I 1 1
6400 ------------ 0.283 ---------------------------- 0.286 0186 .
I WR I I I 72 1 1 1 1 I 1 I
------------ -------------- L----- - - - - -- ---------- -- j -------------- j ---- -- - -- - -- -- t- - - j-- --- - -- -j- - - -j
'EXISTING I.C.U. ' 0.547
L------------------------------------------------------ L--------- -- --L- -- --------- L-- ----- - -- -L- - - L -- - ------ - -- - -t
IFXOSTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ( 0.555 I 1
'-------- ______ ----- _ ------- --___—_______ --------------------- _ ------- _____ ----- S__ --- —___ G_�__ —___'
.EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U. T 0.555
L—______ ----------- _ ---------- — ------ -- ----- — ------------------------------ —__—__________________ __________________1_ ----- - - ---
1
❑X Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be tess than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvement will be less than I.C.U. witlwut project
Description of system Improvement
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
7/20/2005,11:16 AM I C!
b0
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTOJZATION ANALYSIS tL
µ
v
C'rLr+l!!�T
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH 8 BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4160
I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 2005 PK HR I I REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED I PROJECT 'PROJECT VlCI
I Movement Lane Capacity) Lane Capacityl Volume 12005 VlC Ratio) GROWTH I PROJECT IVlC Ralta wfO) Volume I Raffo I
Volume Volume Pmject Vol ,
r--------- -- i--- ----------- f--- ------- — 1 ----------- f----- — --- -- 1 ------ -- -- -t- ° —
-- ..... ------- ------j
NL . .
------------ —. — ------------ -- --------- — _l ---------- —._ ------- - ------ --- ------- —_ _------ __�-- __-- ___..----- _ - - - --
I NT I I I 405 I I 1 1 I I I I
• 8400 ' ' ---- - —' 0.105 ' ' - -- - -' 0.106 • -- • 0.106 '
f.____ N� {______________ }_ _269 I I ______________`_ —. 2 —__ 1 r ________ -1 I
t-------------- a— ------------- --- -- ------- ------ --- --- f------- — --- _ ----- — ____ —_ I --- --------
__— _____—
SL I 3200 I i 249 I 0.075 I I { 0.076 I I 0.078 I
--- — ---- — ------ — ----------- _L__— _______— ___._--__ __.__—wa_._ -- _— — ._-- _— .___�_— ___------ - - -__.
ST 3200 I 371 I 0.116 I ( 19 I 0.122 0.122
-------------- -- _-- -------
f
SR 0
-- ----- — --- r____._— --- —_ n_____—_ ----- — r----______ r ----------- — --- - - - - -r
{ EL { I { ass I { { t 1 { {
ET 800D f------ -- ---- 1._ —__872 ___._I 0.238 f --- -- ----- --- 1 -------
1 0.238 0238 I
{-- -------- -- t- --------- ---J-- --- --- ----- I I — — — 1-- -- ----- - -J
ER I I I 161 I I I 3 I I I f
L -- - 1 L J ----- - -- -L .. _J__ _4- �- J. - - L_ ... - ✓_ - .. -_I
WL
f— .— ---------- ----- - ------- f_------------ { -------- — ----- {— ------- --_*-_— ----- — 4— ---------- --- _— __---- _
WT ,
r_.._— ______ r— _______--- r._--- _ -. -._, --------- r--- _._ ,
I WR I I I I I I I I I I
' EXISTING I.C.U. • 0.421 1'
L-------------------------------- -- -- ----- ---- f----- -- -- - - - ---- -- ---- -- ---- ---- - ---- -- - - ---- --- ----- -�
(EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.422
r• ___—_______---_—___--_-.--_—___._—_----_____________—__ -------- - -- ' --- — ----- - -'
EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED +PROJECT I.C.U. 0.422 ,
❑X Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greaW than 0.90
Projeced + project tI lc I.C.U. wlsystems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
ED Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Impnwament will be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system Improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
7/2012005, 11:16 AM 169
�gw
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ,i
F
V
n4fjry]RV�'+
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH & BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4160
T______________.I__ REGIONAL rC ---- -- — D rPR ---- -- - T---- ___— _r_____ —__w_I
Movemerd EXISTING PROPOSED 2005 PK HR '2005 VEC Ratio GROWTH PROJECT V/C RatIow /o PROJECT PROJECT VlC�
1 I Lane Capacity I Lane Capacity I Volume 1 1 I 1 I Volume I Ratio I
Volume Volume Projectvd
r----------- 1------------- f------------- j-------------- f------------ -P----- - - - - -- -- ------
i
_____ N_L________- .....
-_ .... L ------------- 1_ -------------- t_- ----- _---- ---------- __ 1__ ------------ 1----------- - _1- __________a
I NT I I I 257 I I I 12
6400 ' - - - - -- 0.088 ' - - - - - -' ' 0.091 ' 0.091 '
�'
NR r_____________1_ 305 I � - - - -- T - -- i� � T___— ___ —_ —� 1
------------- a------------- _ _________ _J-------- _ ----- l-------------- -------------- t--------- _---- —_ ------- — _ --------- — _�__________I
SL 1 3200 I 1 338 I 0.108 I I i 0.106 1 I 0.106 1
ST 1 3200 I I 838 I 0.261
,
SR I
r "Y
I EL I
j----- - -- - - -j
ET
L-- ----------
�
1 ER I
L _J.
WL
T_____________4
WT i
WR
f--------- _ --- ---------- _ --- F---------- --
I
I I 227 I I
�---------- -- -j ----- -- - - ---I I
8000 1180
L -------------- J ------------- —I {
I I 129 I I
2 0.262
- -0.262
I I 1 I
12 0.194 0.194
l--- _ ---- - -a I
I I i I
{ { I { { {
(EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
+REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U.
fX Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
EDProjected+ project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
EDProjeded + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvement will be lass than I.C.V. without project
Description of system Improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
0.455
0.455
7/20/2005, 11:16 AM 11b
�gW
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
cv
n^'UriiA'>
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH d BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4175
' EXISTING PROPOSED 2005 PK HR REGIONAL COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT j PROJECT
i Movement ( lane Capacity) Lane Capacity I Volume 12005 V/C Rallol GROWTH I PROJECT i WC Ratio WD i Volume I Ratio
I Volume Volume Project Vol
r- --------- -- j --------- - ---- ' t
t -- j------------- r------------ ------ - - - - -r - j -
' NL ' 3200 ' 112 0.035 ' ' 1 0.035 0.035
i---------- —_ _ _______________ ----- — ----- — --------------- ------- — ----- _______________ L ------------- a__— ----- — _>-------------- ________-
I NT I 3200 I I 1080 1 0.338 I I I 0338 1 1 0.338
--------- __ ___r-- ._________r__--- ___ —___.�
— ------------ --- — ---------
J
I St. I I I
1 t 1 I
j ST I 1 1 137 I I I a I I I I
t------- --- --i 6400 t------ — ------ {------ -- - - --I o.oao h--- — ---- --- t-------- - - --i 0.042 h-- -- -- - --i 0.042 I
I SR i I I 122 I 1 I 1 I 1 I
r____—__—____ n__-_---.._---- r_._--_______ y.___—_______-_ r___.___-- ___r_ __________ ___r.-- __— _ - -__— -- __- __--- .- �_�__ - -_ —_ ---------
I EL I I
------ -- ----- r-- -- -- - - ---- -- -- ----- -- ---j - ---- - ----- — -- j-- ----- — ---- T------ — --- — j --- ------ - - -r— -- j - -- -- j
ET
�----------- --i ------ --L- - ------ — L- - - --- t-- ------ — -- t -- --------- 1 -- - -- 1_ — J -- - - - -�!
I ER I I I I I
------------ -_ I.- --------- -- A --- - --------- L__---__.__. J--___._-____ L._..----- -__
I WL I I 1 463 I 1 I t1 I 1 I I
b----- ---- --- h -- -- i t-- --- - -----1 I
i WT i 8000 i i 1450 i 0.275 i i 3 i 0.276 i i 0.276 i
I WR I 1 1 284 I I I I I I I
r — r j— r— -- j -- — j-- ----------- t- -- --- - - - - -j
'EXISTING I.C.U. ' 0.612
L--_-- ----- ----- ------- — ------- -- __— --------- ----- — --------- — ----- — ----- —_ -- --- — ----- i--------- ------- - ----- ----- - -_��
(EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.614
-------------- ---- ----------------- ----- ------- — ----- — _-- J--- __ - - -_
+REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U.
❑ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected + project trafilc I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
❑ Projected + project two, I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be tens than or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvement win be less than I.C.U. without project
DescdptIon of system Improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Mamngale Way - Restaurant
0.614
7!20/2005, 11:17 AM 11 1
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZA
INTERSECTION:. BRISTOL STREET NORTH
SCENARIO: 2005
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
- - -------------t-------------r-------------t--------------
' EXISTING PROPOSED 2005 PK HR
Movement 2005 V/C Ratio
Lane capacity I Lane Capacity I volume 1
t------------ t - - - - -- - r -- - t--- ---- ----- t---- --- - - - - --
'
NIL ' 3200 ' 1'1 139 ' 0 043
L_-- --------- — .............
NT I 3200 I ( 335 i 0.105
' -____ - -_ • '
NR
--------- --. t --------------- �________— _L— --- - --------
i SL
P' ST I I I 615 1
t- ...- --- - -i 6400 t------ ------ -- 'I- ---- --- ----I 0.246
I SR 95e I
--- -- ----- �_--- ---------- r--------------
I EL
ET
— L-- ----- - -----
I ER I I I I
I WL I I I 544 I
— ------ — ---
�____T —____I
i WT i 8000 i i 1990 i 0.321
r'- '- '-- ------ r-------- -----•--------- - - - - -'
WR I 1 136 I
I
A`
6
TION ANALYSIS �-
V
8 BIRCH STREET
TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4175
_______ __ _ _ __ _
REGIONAL COMMITTEDrPROJECTED r
GROWTH PROJECT VIC Ratio w/o PROJECT PROJECT VEC
Volume ! Volume I Projact Vol volume I Rata
------------- t------------t-----------t--------------t---------
12 ' 0.047 ' 1 0.047
------------- l------- ------- L ---- — -------- 1------ — --- --
0.105 I ( 0.105
+ REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
— __________ —; ____---- ----- ------ _------ ..-- __- -_ —__.
0.246 0.246 j
I I I
I I I I I
L ------------ -J_ ----------- - _1- --- - ---- - _A____- _ -___I
I 2 I 1 1 1
�--- — ------- -i I------- - - - - -i I
i 1 i 0.322 i i 0.322
- ------ - - - ---
I I I 1 I
;TING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED+ PROJECT I.C.U.
0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems Improvement will be Was than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project haffic I.C.U. with project Improvement win be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system Improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
0.615
1 i
7/20/2005,11:17 AM i -)
o
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
t
J
C''ltM1P'MT
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD (E•W) & MACARTHUR BLVD (NS)
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER 4275
I I I 1 1 REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I I I
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED 2005 PK HR ' 2005 V/C Ratio GROWTH PROJECT PROJECT V/C'
I I lane Capacity I Lane Capacity I volume ( Volume I Volume PROJECT I V/C RatW w/o Project Vol I Volume 1 Rath I
f -- - - 1- - - t---- --- --- --t----- - - - --- F -------------- t 7-- --- ----- - -t ----------- h- --- t-- ---- -- 1
' Ni. ' 32W I ' 181 ' 0 057 ' 2 ' ' 0.057 ' ' 0 057 '
L. - .---- l --------- - --- J------------- --- - -------- 4 ----- -- ...... L --------- i --- -- ----- - ! - -- -- -------- I
NT 1 4800 I I 1713 I 0.357 1 17 1 6 1 0.362 I 1 0.362
_ _ _
-- ------- - -_ —' _______.' ---- — ______ —' --------- ---- ----------- — __________ --- 0.231 _, _ _ — ------ r NR 1600 ` — 1 365 f 0.228 -- 4 t -- 1 �_ --- -_ - - -- T- y — � --------------
- - - -,
t------ -----a--- ----- ------ --- ---- -- ----------- t----- -- - ----- -------------- (- ------------ ------ - - ----t - -----
SL I 3200 I ( 5g I 0.018 I 1 I 1 1 0.019 I 1 0.019 ,
4 J_ _ -J t - -i -- L _A_ _ - •
ST 8 A - - - -J
400 284 0.059 3 1 0.060 0.060
F------------ t------------ t------- -- ---t---- --- ---t- --- --- - - -- i- - -- - t- ------ ---- t --- -- ----- - t ------ -- ----i- - ----
- 1
i SR i N.S. i i 133 I 1 1 I 10 I I I 1
EL I 3200 I I 478 1 0.149 1 5 I 11 I 0.154 I 1 0.154
-------------- j-- ---- -- ------- - --- --- -- -----j --------- - --- � - - -- -j -------- ----- ------ - ------ T------- -i ---- - ------- j- --------- -- j
ET 4800 1202 0.250 12 20 0.257 0.257
(------------- J------------- t ---- ---- -- -- --1---- ------ - ---1— --------- J------ -------1---- ---- - - -- 1 ° —t -----------
ER I N.S. 1 ) 237 I ) 2 ) ( I ) )
i WL 3200 i 265 0.083 3 I 0.084 0.084
i WT i 4800 i I 835 i 0.174 i 8 ' 36 i 0.183 i i 0.183 i
__- _____-- ^— _____________�
I WR i N.S. I I 234 I I 2 I 9 I I 1 I
'EXISI ING I.C.U. 1 0.708 ' 1 '
L-------------------------------- ------ -- --------- t-- -- -- --- - -- ---- - -- - --- -- -- -- -- -- -- i - - - -- ----- --- - - ---t
I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.721 I 1 j
' ----------- -_ ___— _-- __— _- ______ —___ —_
_ __- - -____ _____— --- --__— ------ — ------- —' 0.721 1
r
EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED +PROJECT I.C.U. �—
-X X Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected +project traffic l.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projected + project traffik I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be lass than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with paled improvement will be less Man I.G.U. without project
Description of system improvement
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
712012005,11:21 AM 11-3
�� a
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS U �rVrvwfit ° . o�
$
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD (ENV) 8 MACARTHUR BLVD (NS)
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4275
I r r r r REGIONAL r COMMITTED r PROJECTED r r r
Movement EXISTING 'PROPOSED ' 2005 PK HR '200.5 V/C Ratio GROWTH PROJECT VEC Rallowlo PROJECT PROJECT V/C'
I Lane Capacity i Lane Capacity I Volume I Volume I Volume I Project Vol I Volume I Rath I
r -- - y -------------- 'r - - -- - 1--- - ---------- 1 ---- -- ------ t ------- -- --- t----- ------- t---- -------- t -------------- 'r ------ - --- - -i
' NI. ' 3200 ' ' 275 ' 0.086 ' 3 0.087 ' 0.087 '
�------- - - - - -- --------------- t---- - - - - -- -- - ------ - - - - - --- --------- 1-- --- ---- - - - - - ------------ 1----- - - - - -- L-- --------- J
NT i 4800 I ( 502 ( 0.105 I 5 I 1 I 0.106 I I 0.108 I
_ _
____________ ____________ — _ ___ ----- -------- —' --- — -------- ' ------- —__ —_ -------------- , — --- ' _— __ ------
NR 1600 , 230 0.144 2 0.145 0.145
t------ -- ---- t— __— ___— __)_— ---- ----- I---- — --------- L-___— ----- --- ------- -- --- 1— ---------- — 1__-- _— _____i --- — ------ —_.)
j SL i 3200 . j i 184 j 0.058 j 2 j 8 j 0.061 j j 0.061 j
ST 4800 1548 I 0.323 I 15 5 0.327 0.327
------ — ------ t-------- ---- t--- --- — ---- i- --- -- --------- t - --- ----t------ -- — t — — —t - -- t--- - ----- - -t--- --------
i
j SR i N.S. i I 400 I I 4 I 10 I I I I
r------ — ------ r-------- — ---- r ---------- —_ 1—__--___-- r___-____-- r ------- —_—_ r__________ r____— -------- r--------------
r__-- -___ —�
EL I 3200 I I 183 I 0.057 I 2 I 9 ( 0.061 I 1 0.061 I
---- -- ---- - -j - --- ------j - --- - - -- -- ----- ____-- j- ------- ------ ---------- T--- ---- --- T- ------ -- -----
ET ' 4800 1136 0.237 11 30 0.245 0.245
1 -- — J- --------- --- -1--- ---- - -- -- L -- — L— -- —i __ -- 1 -- — 1----------- 1- ------------1----- ----- ---j
I ER I N.S. I I 60 I I 1 I I 1 I I
-------- -_ _-- ------- _ t ---- --__- J_______- __- __1- _- _-- -----
.L.___- _. - -._l
WL I 3200 ! 689 I 0.215 i 7 ! 1 i 0.218 ' 0.218
--------- --+ -------- — ---- t_----- ------ ------- - - - -{
j WT j 4800 j j 1075 j 0.224 j It j 27 j 0.232 j j 0.232 i
I WR I N.S. I I 92 I 1 1 I 2
'EXISTING I.C.U. 0.860 I I I I '
1-------------- -- ---- ----- ----- -- - - -- — — L - -- — —i -- --- --- --- 1--- -- -- -- -- --J
I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.877 ( I i
,' _ _ _ ______—_— --- — --------
EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U. r -0.877 ,
L—__-- --- — -------- — ------ _-------_— --------- — __— ----- ___-- ---- -- _— ---- - - --- ----------- — J__— ---
❑ Projected + pmject traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + pmject batfic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
OProjected + project traffic I.C.U. Wsystsms improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvement will be toss than I.C.U. wittmut project
Description of system Improvement
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
7/2012005,11:24 AM l -1i
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS (1)
;
INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE & VON KARMAN AVE
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4302
I I I I 1 1 REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED! PROJECTED I I I
EXISTING PROPOSED 2005 PK HR PROJECT ` PROJECT WC'
j Movement I Lane Capacity I Lane Capacity ) Volume 12005 VIC Ratioj GROWTH j PROJECT j VIC Ratiowfo j Volume I Ratio I
Volume Volume Project Vol
r----------- j-------- -- --- --t- ---- ----- --- 1--- - -- -L t- --- ---- -----t---- ----- -----t— — t — t -- t--- -- - --- -I
' NL ' 1600 ' ' 46 ' 0 029 II' 0 029 ' ' 0 029
--- — ---- — ---- .—___—.___— �__— ----------- L_______—____- L ------- - ----- ---- — --- --- 4 — ------------ L---------
NT I 3200 I I 549 I 0.172 I I I 0.172 1 ( 0.172 I
`------------ —. N.S. . _____"_"'_. 84 ` • ` -- _ - - - --
t--- ---- - --- a-------------- t-------------------------- 1----------- --a-- ---- ------- 1--- ---- - - - --- - ----- -------1--- - --- ----- - -- — - - -- --t
i SL j 1600 j i 67 j 0.042 I I 1 0.042 j j 0.642 j
`------ --------- -------- - ------------- '- ---------- ------------------ ------- — --- — ------ - - --- ' --- — --------- - -- -- - ------ ------- ----- -'
I ST { { I 333 I I I { I { I
t
----- - - ---i 3200 t---- ------ -t-- --- ---- - --t 0.147 h — — — F----------- --i 0.147 t -- i 0.147 j
i SR I I I 137 I I { I
rI
---...-__— r________._-- r__-.—.-_— -_ —_____..- __ rI — .__- __ - - - -_
EL 7 I
1600 I I 67 1 0.042 I I I 0.042 I I 0.042
_
j- --- ET ----- 3zo0 — °T--- -- ----- ---- �---- - -4ss -- -t-- -- o. ia2 --- T --- - -- ----- t--- — --------- T- - --0.142 --- -t----- --- - -T--- 0.142 ---1
t- ----- -- - --- - --- -- --- -- t- ------ ----- ----------- 1----- -- ----- i--------------- 1-- -------- - -J ------- — ------ 1-- -------- J-- --- --- -- - --1
ER I N.S. I I 93 I I { I I I I
L_- -------- -- J ------- - ------ L -------------- A._------------ L ----------- -_J.___-...._ 1-____ -------- A-_- ---------- 1------ - .. ..... J..---- -- _ - ----
!
WL 1600 i 94 0.059 I I I 0.059 I 0.059
- -- ?Ari 1 3200 I I I I I I I I t
�------ ____�______--- ________r 0. 777 ,- __..- _- ___— __r-------------- 0.177 r ----- - -_ -_ - 0.177
WR I I I 157 I I I I I I i
t-� - - - - - t------------- i--------------- r------- - - - - -- -------------- t ------------- t-- -------- - -i
'EXISTING I.C.U. ` 0.432 ' ' '
----------
,.—__— _— __— ��— _.-- _- _�._.__— __._____I
(EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W10 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.432 I I
rEXiSTING *REG GROWTH +COMMITTED +PROJECT I.C.U. r 0.432
❑ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will he greater than 0.90
❑ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project taf is I.C.U. with project improvement will be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system Improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
7/20/2005, 11:24 AM 1 15
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS F � +r- 1M14�b
c� o
U
INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE 8 VON KARMAN AVE
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4302
I I I I I REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED' I I
Movement EXISTING PROPOSED ' 2005 PK HR ' V1C Ratio GROWTH PROJECT VIC Ratio wlo PROJECT PROJECT VIC'
I I Lane Capacity i Lane Capacity I Volume 1 ( 1 I I Volume I Ratio 1
Volume , Volume Project Vol .
r-------------- 1------------- r-------- -- --t- -------- -- -t ---- I - -t- 11 - - t- - -- - 1 - h - --t--- ------- --1
' NL ' 1600 77 77 ' 0.046 ' -- -- ' 0.046 ' 0.046
�----- - - - - -- --------- - - - - - 1
� - - ------------- 1-- ----- -- -- ---- ----- ------1-- - -- -�- - -- 1--- -- -- -- ------ -- ---- -!
1 NT I 3200 1 1 403 1 0.126 1 I 1 0.126 I I 0.126 1
NR_ ___N.S.— ___I._— ___________r —___ 188____ T—_—_______— r-----____ i__---______ T ---- ------- t----- — --- — _7_— --------- —,
- a----- ------ --- t -- - - - t-------- - - - - - ---- ------ - ---------t- ----- - ---------- -I
SL ( 1600 I 1 223 1 0139 I I 1 0.139 I I 0.139 1
ST I I 1 673 I I I I I I I
F--- - - -- --i 3200 F- __ ----- - --t-- ------- i 0.298 F----- --- t--- -- -----i 0.296 t----- --- - ---i 0.298 i
j SR j j 1 260 I I I I I I 1
---- _ --- ___ r_ ----- __ --- r____—_____ r____—____ r_ _____ ---
— �_________r__________r
EL ( 1600 I 1 197 1 0.123 1 I 1 0.123 1 1 0.123 1
ET 3200 630 0.197 0.197 0.197
t------ --- J --- - ------- t- - -- ------------- t-------- -- - ------ ----- -- 1-- -- --- - - -1 -- -1---------- 1--------------I
i ER 1 N.S. 1 I 104
V — J — _t —_- _J __ L_ — A — — —L -- — —L _ L_ — — _J
WL 1600 I 75 ' 0.047 I I I 0.047 i 0.047
--- F--- ---- ---- 4--- ---- -- ---1
Wr 614
3200 r-- ____------ — ----- 0.284 r___-- __— ___— ------- ----- 0.284 0.284
I WR I I i 96 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
'EXISTING I.C.U. ' 0.753
-- ------------ --- ----- -- ---- ----- ---- - -- -L- - - 1--- - -- - -- 1 - - -- - J -_ _1--- - -- - - -- J- ---- -- -- - - - --1
1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.753, 1 1
REG GROWTH + COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U.
FX Projected + project traffic; I.C.U. will be lass than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater then 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems Improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvement will he lass than I.C.U. wfflwA project
Description of system Improvement:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way - Restaurant
0.753
7/20/2005,11:25 AM 1 b
Appendix E
Capacity Analysis - Existing + Approved + Cumulative + Project
Okitsu & Associates 4248 Martingale Way Restaurant Project
gineere and Transpvrtatwo Plano
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
��1
c
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ry D C
n4h�N �
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH a CAMPUS DRIVE I IRVINE AVE
SCENARIO 2005 TIME PERIOD,. AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER 4155
COMMITTED PROJECTED,CUMULATNE— I PROJECTED
Mwemenl
EXISTING PROPOSED' 200a HR' 2005V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/CRaSOw/o PROJECTS V/C Ratlo wo PROJECT PROTECT Y/C
I I tans Ca sdNl Lam Capacity va ana I Rat o 1 I ! I I I vdome Reno
volume volane ProjeaVol vollmle Pmbdva
NL
{ NT 1 1 1 871 1 1 9 { 5 { 1 2 1 { 1
0.129 0.131 I--- -- 0.131 I 0.131
NR I I 1 161 2 I I
i SL i 16OO i i 136 i D.ON i 1 i 3 i 0.089 i i 0.009 i i 0.0%
ST ! Aeco I 1 390 I o.oat 1 a I a 1 0.004 ( 1 l 0.oeA 4 1 0.414
3R
i EL I I I 1161 I I I 9 I I I I I
IEXiSTm I.C.U.
,EXISTING+ REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/O PROPO3EO IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.660
iEXISTING+REG GROWTH + COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.659
IEXMKG +REG GROWTH -COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE +PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.859 I
o PmjWed +P, a"IficI.G.Gw bela,em, egmilo0.90
❑ Pmleaed+ PO7SC11m1Bo LC.U. dbe qa WONn 0.90
❑ Pmlecled +P iwt,.T.t.C.U.w/syslHns unplovema,n wi ea lea than a equatto0.90
❑ PmlWed +project Imf5[ I.C.U. with praIm Improve will be lea nren I.C.U. wilhmt poled
OwcdPWn of Sy t m impm .e t
PROJECT. 4246 MaNlgale Way- RftWMM
772WN5, 2:.32 PM ' -1 a
640E --
0.426 0.430
0.439
ER
32W 363
0.113 25 0121 1
0.122 0.722
I WL
I I I
I 1 I I I I
I I I
r_. ------ ;__ —;
w
WR
IEXiSTm I.C.U.
,EXISTING+ REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/O PROPO3EO IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.660
iEXISTING+REG GROWTH + COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.659
IEXMKG +REG GROWTH -COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE +PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.859 I
o PmjWed +P, a"IficI.G.Gw bela,em, egmilo0.90
❑ Pmleaed+ PO7SC11m1Bo LC.U. dbe qa WONn 0.90
❑ Pmlecled +P iwt,.T.t.C.U.w/syslHns unplovema,n wi ea lea than a equatto0.90
❑ PmlWed +project Imf5[ I.C.U. with praIm Improve will be lea nren I.C.U. wilhmt poled
OwcdPWn of Sy t m impm .e t
PROJECT. 4246 MaNlgale Way- RftWMM
772WN5, 2:.32 PM ' -1 a
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
A W 4
L'
F n
Y
apy
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH
8 CAMPUS DRIVE
SCENARIO: 2005
TIME PERIOD. PM PEAK HWR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4155
REGIONAL j PROJECTED j CUMULATIVE ' PROJECTED ' EJECT 'PROJECT V/C
EXISTING ;PROPOSED ;EXISTING PK ;EXISTING V /Cj
MWwnant IVICRaboWol I I
Lane Capadty, Lino Cspady, HR Volunq Rana
GROWTH PROJECT VICRa�wlo PROJECTS
Vdume Vdlpne Project Vd Vdume Prgecl Vd VdUMe Rath
1 NT 1 1 I bas I
I T I 26 I I I I 1
9000 Dim
o.110 o.11a j
{ NR { { { 181 {
{ 2 { 0 { { { { {
SL I lwa I 1 210 I 0.131
I 2 I l 0.133 1 1 3.133 I 1 0.133 I
�- �______— _- __j•__ —_
_•�__ -5
_r •• 0.105 — r--- -` -'{-
ST 4900 925 , 0.t_._. 19�
1 0.195
I SR
{ EL 1 { { 501 !
{ I 2
I------ - - -•—{ 9400 0212
I-------- j-- -• - - -� 0213 1- - - - - -1 0,242 0.242 1
I ET I I I 65e 1
I I 2 I I m I I I 1
ER 1 3200 1 1 318 I 0.105
1 1 4 I 0106 I 2 1 0.107 1 I 0.107 1
m
1 W'T I I 1 1
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
I WR
jrxsurro t.ay. j D446 I I I I I I I I
IEXISTMG +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.455 I I I I I
EXISTING+ REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED+ CUMULATIVE WA] PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.GU. 0.455
;EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED +PROJECT I.C.U. j 0.465 j
❑X P4cjatletl + pmject t tl.GU. v4p be less 0gn or egWl k 0.90
❑ Rajttlel +v*dt I.C.U. yMb pwt Nan U.90
❑ Pmecicd,pmlect Waft II-u.wlgyaklro kpWemaniviN pe kss t..".I to0.90
❑ P44x1e0, pm7ecl befit I.C.U. w pcjwl ww ,.m0L N1 be less 8p11 I.C.U.vft" p[jw
QestAPSOn a system Nrorwamw[
PROJECT: 4248 W6ng;ala Way -Rwtauant
TIM2005, 2:32 PM 11)
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
L t1l
ez
k;6 k-5tda
INTERSECTION:
MACARTHUR BLVD
8 BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO:
2005
TIME PERIOD,.
AM PEAK "OUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
INTERSECTION NIJMBER
1399
REGIONAL COMMITTED' PROJECTED' CUMULATIVE' PROJECTED'
EXISTING PROPOSEDT 2005 PK HRT PROJECT
I I I I 12005V/CRapol I I PROJECTS I I
I PROJECTV/C
Movement
Lam Capedly'Lane CeDinty' Vdume
GROWTH PROJECT V/CRetipw/pI V1CRatlp W/o
Vdlme VdlT P'±clvd VdlAne Plojecl va VdIAM Rapp
L_ -_- _L-- -J - - -�
NL I
iwo I I 182 I 0082
I 1 1 1 I 0.084 I I 0.064 I
I 0.084
NT
18DO i I 700 0.146
7 I 6 0.148 108 0.171
0.171 i
NR i
N.S. i i 251
I SL I
1800 I I 42 I 0,026
( D I i 0.026 I I 0.028 I
I 0,026 I
ST
087
10 12 59 1
6406 Dim
I----- L- - -__ —J 0.171 I_ —_ —_ —J 0.182 I.- -_J 0.182 I
I SR 1
I I 105 I
1 1 I 10 I i I I 1
I 1
EL I
I I 32
i ET 4
4800 j i 154 i 0.618
0.048 i i 0048 i
i 0.048 i
I ER 1
I I n4 I
I I I I I I
I I
WL
ODD
1600 146 D 0.066
0.088 0.066
0.088
WT 1
3200 I I 218 I D.068
I I I Dow I ( am I
I 0068
FWR
N.S.
�EXISnNGl.c.O. � D3e5 j I I I I I 1
IEXIBTING+ REG GROWTH a COMMITTED WIG PROPOSED VMPROVEMENTS LC.U.
,EXISTING • REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.V. 0.401
(EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED + PROJECT I.C.U. 0401
Fl Prpjecle0+prgedtrml.C.U. w0l pe Bess lhanrcepual to 0.90
Projecletl +pd,e iTaiBC I.C.U. »M pe 9mafer Vqn 0.90
Prc{acled - Prcj ct tMffia I.C.U. w/sysRm imgo .M wig be less Man or"b 0.90
OPrc*W +projoa W ft I. C. U. w pajecl impro,.,ml wK be Mss Elan I.C.U. wMow KoW
DescripW a sYetem improvement
PROJECT: 4248 Mar *Wo Way. ReaUUMM
7/26/2006,2:37 PM i Q V
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS a.
V
CeL�
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BLVD 8 BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD. PM PEAR HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE ONLY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4295
^� REGIONAL •' COMMITTED' PROJECTED' CUMULATIVE
PROJEC S PROJECTED
RM.101
f Mwarnent 1 EY Ca aci I PROPOSED f 2000.5 V/C R@Sol GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C RatlD w/D I PROJECTS I V/C FIRM .10 1 PROTECT j PROTECT Vn;j
Lane Capacity Lane Capeeily r Vol" VahanB VCA V VaMTg Ptljeel Vol 1/d19r18 Prgep Vol Vdpme Ra9D
J—._. .__1.— _.....�1..- ____J•.- -�-_.1
j NL j 1600 j j 55 j 0.034 j 1 i j ao36 j j o.035 j j 0.035 j
L_-- _- ._•_1._ -_ -_ �.-__-- •_.J_�.__— .- L_.•.___�!_.�_ —.•.• ` J.•-___._—.-J-__—_— __-- 1.____- •_- •_JIB_-- .- __ —J_. J
NT 4am 956 0.199 10 7 0.203 96 0.223 0,223
j NR j N.S. 1 I 209
SL I 16M ! I 135 1 0.084 ! 1 I I 0.085 i I 0.095 I 1 0.085 I
r^ ST _ - "— .1_— "_- _�_.1._•_ 792 — 'T__- __— _•'j_ - -_8 __7_•- 8 128._ ._1__•_.-- T._•- _4 _— _�•._— ___._I
uw 0128 0,131 1 _I 0.1s9 L-- -J 0,152 1
I SR I 1 I 26 1 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 t 1
I EL I I ! 110 —I I 5 I I I I 3 I I
Er 1 'e°0 1 I 194 j 0.079 j j j a090 j j o.090 j 1 j 0.091 j
! ER I I� I 74
Wt IWO 193 0.121 0.121 0,121 0.121
j WT j 3200 j j 23A j 0.073 f I I con j j 0.074 j 2 j 0.074 i
WR I Ns. — I 52
iext%TING I.C.U. j o4e3 t I I I I I t
IEXISTTNG +REG GROWTH +COMMTfEDW /O PROPOSED 9APROVEMENTS I.C.U. I OATIS I 1 1 I {
•EXISTING+REGGROWTH+COMMIITED +CUMULATIVE W10 PROPOSED iMPROVEMENfS I.C.U. 0,WEI
jEXISTING +REG GROWTH* COMMITTED PROJECT I.C.U. j 0.509 1
❑x PDpcN . "cte k mu.. wil ea I"$ Man ar 6q 1 0.90
Pcject Wood tmft I.C.U. xi9 be 9re Man 0.90
mProod8D+ Weject b ft I.C.U. w/sysh ir9prD+ament wM be less Oren a 890N 10 0.80
EDProjecte8+ proect 9a0k I.C.U, w prTJecl iWWDVe twig be leas Oren l.C. U. willwx project
D6amollW1 d sYSmn+xlpOremeM:
PROJECT: 4248 MartIn0ale Way -Respe M
7/2612006, 238 PM 1$l
❑% PrgecleO+ptajecl wafic 1. C.U. w" Os lees 111 an U eWal to 0.90
❑ pmpcw+ Prolecl Taft I.C.U. sell be greater l 0.90
❑ Rc{ecle0 +praJecl wa, I.C.U. vxsystems Nsxwem Wdl be less Than a appal to 0.90
RNedat +D'o{scL"ft t.C.U. w glgea ftmemaMwi3 Ga Tess tasl I.C.U. vAtq WOlect
Description of system lrwwared:
PROJECT: 4240 MalOngale Way - Restauant
7(2D/2005, 233 PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
C "ahwslT
INTERSECTIN MAC ARTHUR BLVD 8 VON KARMAN
SCENARIO: 2005+ GROYVTH+ APP + PROJ TIME PERIOD:
AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE ONLY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER:
4235
REGIONAL COMMITTED' PROJECTED CUMULATIVE PROJECTED-
I I PROPOSED 1 2005wne 1 I I I I PROJECT IPROJECTVlCl
EXISTING Ratio
Mwenwd 2005 V/C Ratio1 PROJEC Ratio
PROJECTS
Ratio o'
S WC
GROWTH PROJECT VPr RalVol
Lane Capsdry. Lane CapaiBy' Vdume Vdume Ratio
Roject vd vdume Proiectvd__�______._
vwne � vaume ^� L j
-1
. NIL I 16W ( I 122 I D.077 I 1 I I 0.077 I I 0.077 1
1 I 0.078
HT 4800 nab 0.239 11 ] 0.2J3 108 I 0.265
1 0.266
.......__._.. I....._—_—__._.__. F—_—_-—_--_._---. ._.___— I- --_--— __._._.{._._ - -_r _ i_--
.._.. {._._. —_ —_�
NR I NS I I 835 1 i e I / i I d0 I I
I I
SL I 1600 1 I 41 I 0-026 I 0 I I OD26 I I am I
I 0.028
---- _j-'- -_ —__ 2-0-0..'.—_- 1--'--- T..___.— j---'__—_ �---_.—° T"---- j----- (--•_._.__.T.._.—
_.'_i_'_ " —._ -I
ST 4BOO 339 0.071 3 9 0.073 59 0085
0.065
— .— .- 1.--------- I - -- .L--- - -- -- -- --- _l._.— .-- -I------ -L— __— L.-- -- -- - --�-- --
_- _...._J__J_ —J
SR I NS I I 232 I I 2 I I I I I
I I
EL 1500 35 0022 I I I _ 0.022 0.022 - --
0.022
ET i 3200 i i B2 i 0.026 I 1 I 0,026 ; i 0.026 ;
; 0.026 i
ER I Ns I 1 m I I I 1 I 1 I
I I
WL 32W 66 01021 0,021 42 0034
0.034
WT I I� I I 142 I 0089 I I I 0.066 ( I 0.089 I
1 I 0989
vm 1 NS I I e
EXISTINGLCM, i 0.311 I 1 I I I 1
I 1
EXISTING+ REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WIO PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.316 I I I
I I
- _— _ --7-- -0.351 ?---
_r- -'-_-j
EXISTNG +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
EXL4TING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED +PROJECT I.C.U.
❑% PrgecleO+ptajecl wafic 1. C.U. w" Os lees 111 an U eWal to 0.90
❑ pmpcw+ Prolecl Taft I.C.U. sell be greater l 0.90
❑ Rc{ecle0 +praJecl wa, I.C.U. vxsystems Nsxwem Wdl be less Than a appal to 0.90
RNedat +D'o{scL"ft t.C.U. w glgea ftmemaMwi3 Ga Tess tasl I.C.U. vAtq WOlect
Description of system lrwwared:
PROJECT: 4240 MalOngale Way - Restauant
7(2D/2005, 233 PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS y
y T
INTERSECTION MAC ARTHUR BLVD 8 VON HARMAN
SCENARIO: 2005+ GROWTH + APPROVED TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER 4245
.- - -• - REGIONAL - COMMITTED PROJECTED' CUMULATIVE' PROJECTED'
I MwemaM.t
METING I PROPOSED I.2W5PKHR 12005MJCRa11ol GROWTH 1 PROJECT 1 V1CRatiow/ol PROJECTS I V1CRa0oWol PROJECT JPROJECTVICJ
Lam Ca cjty Lane Capacity' VoMme . • Vdume Votume ' Prajecl Vd VdOme Prafect Vd Vdtxm ' Ratio
.-d _-__1
1
UL 1 1600 I I 48 1 0,03D 1 0 1 I 0.030 I I 0.030 I 5 I 0.033
NT 48W 625 0.130 6 8 0.133 I 96 D.153 5 i 0.154
I NR "S ! { f10 t 4 2 I D I I 43 I 1 I 1
I SL I loo 1 I 33 I 0.020 I D I I o.6r I 1 OR21 I 1 0.021
ST 4000 050 0.186 S T 0.1% 126 0215 3 0.216
1 SR I Ns I I 72 1 I 1 I 1 I I
PROJECT. 42x6 MRfl*WIe Way - ReslamN
7120,2005.2:34 PM l 3
�! EL 16W 160 0100 I 1 1 0.100
0.100
0.100
i ET i 3200 i i 215 i 0.067 i 1 I 0-067 i j
—ER
0.067
i 2 i 0.068
I I Ns I I 231 I I I I I I
1 3
WL 52M 649 0,203 0.203 42
0.216
0.216
OW I 1800 I 1 142 I 0.089 I I I 0.069 1 1
0069
1 5 t 0,092
I WR I Ns I I 23
iEXISTING I.C.U, i Oa85 I I 1 I I
1 I
t EXISTING+ REGGROWTH+ COMMITTEDWIOPROPOSEDRAPROVEMENTSI .C.U. 1 DABS, 1 I
^' —_ -- !_•---
^—
_�•'— ^_— ,•_• ^— •---•,
.E%�R`fING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE WID PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
0.528
EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED • PROJECT I.C.U.
0.533
[X Avfected +POject eamc I.QU. MR W less Ulan d e WI W OX
Projer -Prole "Ric I.C.U. will0e gyeatM Ugn 0.90
Projected+projecl t2MO I.C.U. M*. Mglwernem wR tie NSS Wn a eOUel b 0.90
Preected+ primt traffic I.C. U. wiM pmjW inp ImId will W lees Uqn I.C.U. wkl uproled
DescrWim d system irtlplPVen101d:
PROJECT. 42x6 MRfl*WIe Way - ReslamN
7120,2005.2:34 PM l 3
7 120/2005, 2:35 PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UNLILATION ANALYSIS
V
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR
d CAMPUS
SCENARIO: 2005
TIME PERIOD:
AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
INTERSECTION NUMBER:
43M
EXISTING PROPOSED 2005 PK HR 12
M,rvement 1 I I 129D$YICRJmPI
REGIONAL I PROJECT ` PROJECTED • CPROJEC S • PROJECTED ` PROJECT
I PROJECT IV/CRathw101 PROJECTS IwCjwvoroI
PROJECT V/C
lane Capacity Le,re Ce cae�y,vwre
GROWTH
Vorum
jEwsTING I.C.U. j 0.494 1 I I
i
vaaaa--- I-- va9�ae�_ Prol6ava�vawre .._L_�"�Ra_._.__J
NIL j 180o j j ss j 0.034 j
1 j j 0,034 j j 0.934 j
j 9.934 j
- IEXISTNG *REG GROWTH +COMMITTED WK) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.499
I I
I I
NT i 8400 974 i 0.137
9 i 7 i 0.139 IN 0.156
I 0.156
,EXISTING • REG . COMMITTED - CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ).CU.
0.515
j NR j 1600 j j 63 i 0.0.39 j
1 i j 0.040 j j 9.040 j
j 0040 j
❑X R*cted +mclea"ft LQU.n WIms man me lto 0.9D
SL I 1600 ( 1 255 1« 0.159 I
3- I I 0.161 I 0.161 I
1 0.161 1
❑ PrcWUd♦ P,e1e0 IFft LCU. wftya Ml„a, ,~l.11 W W. Dan veewl b 0.90
ST &100 057 0150
10 22 0155 59 0.184
5.164
Desc,pnm a system MP,me
SR 1 1600 1 1_ 219 I 0.137 1
2 I 9 1 0.144 I I 0.144 I
I 0.144
EL 3209 571 9.176
1 9.179 0, In
0.179
ET 4BOD U5 0.176
1 0.176 0.176
j 0.179 j
7 120/2005, 2:35 PM
. LYL 3200 ]2 0.023 0.023
0.023 D.023
1 WT 1 4800 1 1 249 j 0.052 j j 2 j 0.052
j j 0.952 j j 0.052
WR NS 45
jEwsTING I.C.U. j 0.494 1 I I
I I
I I I
- IEXISTNG *REG GROWTH +COMMITTED WK) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.499
I I
I I
- -'-- --' «--
GROWTH
_ - - - - --
•r - ---
,EXISTING • REG . COMMITTED - CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ).CU.
0.515
jEXISTING i REG GROWTH + COMMITTED +PROJECT I.C.U.
j 0,515
❑X R*cted +mclea"ft LQU.n WIms man me lto 0.9D
❑ P,Pj Iwa- Wood traffic 1. CU, .0 O ww%, It. 0.90
❑ PrcWUd♦ P,e1e0 IFft LCU. wftya Ml„a, ,~l.11 W W. Dan veewl b 0.90
❑ Rcjeaetl +TKaw ftft LCu - mW*awwoye,Ma.0 W less dan LCU. without PPlec1
Desc,pnm a system MP,me
PROJECT. 4248 Meftple Way -RestamM
7 120/2005, 2:35 PM
W
i'
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
V
ralgU�
INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR d CAMPUS
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DARN TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER 4m
EXISTING PROPOSED 2005MHR REGIONAL 'COMMITTED' PROJECTED afiD 'CUOJETS PROJECTED' PROJECT PROJECTVAC
1 Movemem Ilana Cap"tLane C2p&ot, Vain 120x5 VOC Ratbl GROWTH ( PROJECT 1V/C RaaP w/a1 PROJECTS 1VF Ratio enrol Vdluna ! Raeb
LPlawavd
j
HL i law j j 163 j 0.102 j 2 j j an03 j j o lm j j DAM j
M 6600 I 1261 0.197 13 12 6,201 96 0.216 0.216
i NR i 16x0 j i tT j 0.011 i 0 i i 0.011 0.011 0,011
{ SL I 1600 1 I tai { D.092 I 1 I I 9.093 I I am 4 I am I
�- .._.sTlrV 1160 anal 2 aeon _ r�_...— �_.-- 7'--------- "'1--- - --r--- 9 7 -_— __- 1— _-- t-- _.._-- 7---- _-7 - -7
0.1as 126 0206 0204 .
j SR j 1600 j j 650 j 0.612 j 7 j 2 1 0.647 j j 0417 j j 0.417 j
El I 11200 329 0.1W I 14 0.107 0,701 ! 0.107
ET 6800 x69 0.102 2 0.102 D102 0.1
I 1 I I I I I 1 I
{ ER I NS. { { aa
WL 3200 136 0.063 0.063 0,a43 o.OW
i WT 1 sew 1 I ilia j 0,233 j j j 0.233 j j D233 j j 0233 j
1 WR I Hs 1 1 121
jEYASTING LC.u. i 0,746 I I I I I I
IEXLSTMIG•REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WIG PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I x.763
[EXITING + REG GROWTH. OOMMITTED+ CUMULATIVE W10 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS lGU. :- a.i53 �— 1�_ —• —�
;EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED +PROJECT LC.U,
1 O.i53 1
❑X Projemetl+ PrgW blK I.C.U." be less Ilan or equal to 0.90
Page. d+ VOW lrJffic I.C.U. vM9 be greater then 0.90
0 P- p-w .Ptgea glJl.I.C.U. vebystens improvenrtm v. i9 be tesa than a equal to 0.90
ElP'oi leg *Psgea tr6f9q I.OU.wo,lBge.t irgrwement wi96elees III I.C.U. vMMgm P*d
0lSa®a.n asybtem im.rwemem:
PROJECT: 6248 Martingale Way - Restaurant!
7I20tM, 2.35 PM )%5
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way- Resteuant
712012005, 2:38 PM I YI
e weo
_
a +
INTERSECTION CAPACITY Vf66ATIDN ANALYSIS
is
" +axorrns
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH 8 CAMPUS DR I IRVINE AVE
--
SCENARIO: 7005 TIME PERIOD:
AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DALY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER:
4172
EGIO_.._I_.._.____r_._
` EXISTING ' PROPOSED 2005 PK HR REGIONAL COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROD ATNEPROJECTED I PROJECT ~PROJECT VIG
I I I I 12005VECRauol I IVICRamw/oI PROJECTSIVA;RatioWo. I I
Abvement GROWTH PROJECT
LaM Capaatyr lane C2pacily� Vdume Volume
Vdume Vdume ProjMVd Vdume Prgegt Vd
Ram
NL I 3200 I I 40B I 0.128 I 4 I 1 I 0.129 I 1 I am I
I 0.129
HT 4800 1342 0.280 13 ! 13 ! 0.285 1 0.285 ;
! 0.285
' NR
I SL
ST 6400 185 0.028 10 0.030 1 0.031
0.031
SR I 3200 I I 52 I 0.016 I I 1 I 0016 I I 0.016 I
I 0.016
I I I I 1 I I I i I I
I I
EL
ET
" I ER I I I I I I I I I I
I I
T^ ^I•_._..__._.�
2 r ^0158 �•
WL 1600 25r_
2 0.159 01158
0,159
NO I wr I I I 860 I I I z I I 175 I I
I I
moo 0.143 0.143 ---- • - -• --+ P.r,6
e.r9
I WR I I I 74 I I I I I 1
t --- ....•• — F•-- •-t- -- 1 — F-+-- ----
-f••-- •• -- -I
;EXI5TINGI.CU.
(EXISTING +REG GROWTH -COMMIT= WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LCU. I 0.428 I I I
I
rE r0.4% r--- •-••_•••�—
�•_••�
' %(STING +REG GROWTH +COI IRTEO+ CUMULATIVE WN PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED+ PROJECT I.C.U.
i 0.5
. EX Projected +prMea tmfk I.C.U. wit m Nee man a epee to 0.90
Pr*AmI+ prejed baMC I.C.U." be Wm than 0.90
Pmjeaed+ Pralea balk I.C.U. w YW— IWWanwa" be lass Sian U equal to 0.80
0 IYT4eded+PMjW baliP I.C.U. rMlh Pmjea innrpe~l w be.Iess ft. I.C.U. wMboa project
Desalpmnasysk npovemenl:
PROJECT: 4248 Martingale Way- Resteuant
712012005, 2:38 PM I YI
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
(01
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH a CAMPUS OR I IRVINE AVE
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER 4172
jEXISTING LC.U- I °5'7 i I I i I I 1 I
!EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.555 I I ! ! I
�EwsnNG +REG GROWTH , COMMITTED +�• --- --• - -- --- ^--�—— T— ""-- ••T------ •1-- - - - - -1
CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.574
;EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTEE) PROJECT I.C.U. ; 0.574
f-71 Pr*cted. pctea baNO I.C.U. w be less denpepual to 0.90
Pmj¢cted+Pmje balk I.C.U, wN be pwer fun 0.90
Pmleclad+ pgect baffle I.C. U. wMyet kpwe wig be less ien m spiel to O.W
Prc/ecled +pejW eagle l.C.U. with pojecl irrj,rea wia be lees !ban I.C.U. wilhc0l pojecl
Descrydon a system inVr amen
PROJECT. 4245 Martingale Way - Restawant
7/2012005, 2:36 PM
EXISTING PROPOSED 2W5 PK NR REGIONAL COMMITTED' PROJECTED' CUMULATIVE' PROJECTED' PROJECT
I Mwerrep I I i 12005V/CRaWl GROWTH I IV IVICRatiowol
PROJECTV/C
l I
PROJECT /CRadow/ol PROJECTS
Lane Capaciy' Lane Capack" Vaume
Volume
P'°I°va VONM ageyva
Raft
_L "�. ^
NL I azm 1 I 375 j 0.117 ; 4 j 10 j 0121 j 2 j 0,122 ;.
i OA22
NT G 4800 ' 731 , 0.152 { 7 18 t 0.158 1 0.159
0.158
I SL I ! I I I I ! I I I
I I
ST 640D 9w 0.147 2 D,147 1 0.147
0.147
•- -- 1-- _.- 1.-- .L— _____l.._.
I J
1 SR I 32W I l 209 I 0.065 ! ( 2 I 0.086 I 0 I 0.088 !
I DOW
I EL
ET
I I I I I I I I i I I
I I
I ER I I I I I I I I I I
I I
MIL 1800 199 0.124 0.124 D.124
0.124
{ WT { { { 1740 I { { 20 { { 717 { I
{ I
0.203 0288 0.305 —
—!
0.305
i I I I I
WR 72
I I
jEXISTING LC.U- I °5'7 i I I i I I 1 I
!EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.555 I I ! ! I
�EwsnNG +REG GROWTH , COMMITTED +�• --- --• - -- --- ^--�—— T— ""-- ••T------ •1-- - - - - -1
CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.574
;EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTEE) PROJECT I.C.U. ; 0.574
f-71 Pr*cted. pctea baNO I.C.U. w be less denpepual to 0.90
Pmj¢cted+Pmje balk I.C.U, wN be pwer fun 0.90
Pmleclad+ pgect baffle I.C. U. wMyet kpwe wig be less ien m spiel to O.W
Prc/ecled +pejW eagle l.C.U. with pojecl irrj,rea wia be lees !ban I.C.U. wilhc0l pojecl
Descrydon a system inVr amen
PROJECT. 4245 Martingale Way - Restawant
7/2012005, 2:36 PM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY LITILT2ATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET SOUTH 5 BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD:
EXSTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSEC IONMIMBER:
(01
AM PEAK HOUR
4160
REGIONAL COMMITTED'. PROJECTED' CUMULATIVE' PROJECTED'
1 Mwemem 1 EXISTING i PROPOSED i 2005 PK NR 120DS V/C Re011 GROWTH I PROJECT 1VIC Raft W/o I PROJECTS IV/C ReOp,wgi PROJECT iROOJECT VICI
Lane Capaaty, Lana CaPacay� Vg44rws Vollae Vokm d Valeta RaOa
i �1 Vol Va .L vatme l._R"`�
I
Nt.
NT I I I 405 I I 1 1 I I I I I 1
t----- ---- -i 64W i-- ----- F - - - -_ - --1 0.105 I'- -- ------ i.••.____•_•_•_i 0,106 0.1% }.._._.__..._� 0. m i
I NR I I I 2e9 1 I I 2 I I 1 I 1 I
i SL I moo I I 249 I 00Ta I I I 0078 i I 0078 I I 0.078
320 0An
3T 0 3T1 0 a22 0.122 .1t6 19 O 0.122
I SR I I I I I I I I I I I
I EL I 1 I am
i ET i a000 an i 0.239 i i 1 i 0.219 i 55 i 0.245 i i 0.245 i
I ER I I I 161 I I I 3 I 1 I I I I
WL
I WT I I I I I I I 1 I I I I
I WR I 1 I W I 1 I I I I I 1 I
61STING I.C.U. i O.i21 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1
IEXRTtNG +REG G�WTH a COMMITTED WRROPp$ED OAPROVEMEt4TS I.C.U. I 0422
!EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 042- -r- -_----__-I
iEXISTING +REGGROWTH +COMMITTED +PROJECTLC.U. i 0429 i
OX Pmjecle0-WoJWbaBk l.OU. w90a lass Manaequal to 0.90
Pmpww +Prejact "m I.C.U. we Ee Orsaw tlnn 0.90
17 Ro*W + Protect "Ifie LC.U.w/syawms Novena wall EB lass 01a1 or equal to 0.90
OPmjecte0+ pmjacl oalfW lC.U. wim P1ject h v moam wlA be lass Nan lC.U. v project
Desulpfi0n a system inpwement
PROJECT: 4240 Mararpals Way. Resbmant
7120/2DO5. 2:38 PM
ps Oq
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
M1 A
Y
C +[tro✓4�
INTERSECTION BRISTOL STREET SOUTH IS BIRCH STREET `
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOG'. PMPEAKHOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER HBO
MeverrlBM i REGIONAL COMMITTED CUMULAT PROJECTED EXWrMG PROPOSED 2005 PK HR t 205 VC Ra0j GROWTH PROJECT VK Rt nB PROJECTS WC Patio W1
j PROJECT j PROJECTV/Cj
one Capety tNCapary. VoMm
Volans Vdume Pyed IN VoMme PTgeetVd Vo ume . Ratlp i
I HL I I I t I I 1 1 I I I I
I NT 1 I I 257 I I I 12
F- -- - - -� 6411 I--- • ---1- i D.Oae i-- __.— __j.._ ---__� oan j— _.—__j 0.0,1 }— _– .--._{ 0.09+ j
1 NR I { I 305 I 1 { 10 1 1 1 { 1 1
SL 1 3200 i I 33a I 0.106 I 1 I am 1 I aloe 1 I 0.106 1
' ST ' 3200 ' . 936 ' 0 281 • 2 0.262 • 0.262 ' ' 0.262 '
{ SR { { { 1 1 1 { { 1 1 1 1
EL I I 1 227
1 Er I 8000 I_ ! 1181 j 0.192 12 j Dim j 188 j 1217 j j 0.r7 j
{ ER { i 1 129 { 1 I { 1 1 I { 1
N/L
I `"T
{ WR
jEXLSTINGLC.U. j 0.4M
(EXISTING- REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0456 I I I I
.EXISTING +REG GROWTH -COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED MPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 0.479
jEXSSTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED +PROJECT I.C.U. j 0.479 j
❑% P1Me<fed'f <Me0L0Bfflc1.C.U. wR Oe less WnareAVel to 0.90
❑ R*dao +plated Oahe LC.U. wN O, Oreater 108110.90
❑ PrgedeO +pn118d bafiK I.C.U. xysystems 0rwrov. wR Oe las own or etsal to 0.90
❑ F7ajepte0 +Ptwtam l.C.U. x111 pmjed improuerrwM M pe less Own l.C. U. VAMMA project
Desvlp9 of system Improvement
PROJECT: 4248 MBNnOals Way. Resteuram
p
712=2005,2:37 I M ' Vq
INTERSECTION CAPACITY BTILRAMON ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH S BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAR HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DALY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER 4175
^� REGIONAL
Movement I '- 2005 VJC Ra0 COMMITTED PROJECTED CUMULATIVE' PROJECTED
EXISTING PROPOSED 205 PK HR 1 GROWTH PROJECT WC Ratio wa PROJECTS VC aotlo
'
PROJECT PROJECT VC
Lane CapaGrylLane Capacity Vdm a
Vqume Ratio
Vdume Vdume Pmlect Vd Vdums PftiegVq
j w j 3" j j +12 j 0.o j i i j O.M5 j j 0.035 j j 0.035 j
NT Koo 1000 0338 I I 0.338 I 0.338 0.338
I NR I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1
I
SL
ST +37 a
- -J sow o.mo L— __— L —.. - -J 0032 I 1 o.042 0.042 I
i
SR I I I 122
ET
I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I
I ER I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
m 463 11
1 Wr i 80°o I I 1450 j 0275 j j 3 j 0.275 j 175 j 0.2v j j 0z i
I WR
iEXISTING W.U. ; 0.612 ( I 1 I ( 1 1
0__•__•__.— ..._..___�. ^—.._ _'— ___..._rte— �—r-�1
(EXISTING +REG mom". COMMITTED WAPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.614
!EXISTING IN *G REG GROWTH. COMMITTED. CUMULATIVE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. o.m •�• - -� -I
jEXI5Tml. REG GROWTH- COMMITTED r PROJECT I.C.U. j 0.m j
Rcjade +V*d Valfe l .C.U.+ N be 1. Man IX eeaal to 0.90 .
PrgedM -0,*dt fat I.C.Q. v4e be Pleew tnen 0.1X1
ElRalageo'TagagbaMC1.CU. vdsystenlfrt44orememvM t»kea man ar eRlg11o0.90
E3 MI-M-V*d bait LCU. WM W0eq lmWOVbMnl nl be less then I.C.U. xmw WOIed .
Descipaw d system Ylgmvement
PROJECT: 4248 MertNgda Way - Rwtaw1
7!201200.5, 2:37 PM q b
_6
w e cA
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c
V
INTERSECTION: BRISTOL STREET NORTH S BIRCH STREET
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 1175
Mo a rea
EHl$T{NG PROPOSE 2005 PI(HR REGIONAL COMMITTED' PROJECTED' CUMULATIVE' PROJECTED'
I 1 1 12W5 VIC Ratio) GROWTH i PROJECT 1 VIC Ratio Wo 1 PROJECTS 1 WC Ra00 Wo 1
PROJECT PROJECT VIC
1 1
Lana CapacnY LanO CapaaN VgLma
VdUre Votana Ptaj¢a Va VctaRb Ptgact Yd
Vdwre Rath
j NL
j 32W j j 139 j
Ow3 j j 12 j o.a7 j j 0,067 j
j OW7 j
f HT
3200 335 I
0.105 I I I 0.105 j ^••__� I 0.105 !
0.105
j NR
WL 1 506 2
1 WT 1 Bow j 1 1890 1 0.321 j j 1 1 0.322 1 117 1 0,338 1 1 0.336 j
1• WR 1 1 1 138
jEmTwGI.C.U.
(EXISTING +REG GROWTH. COMMITTEDWiPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSLCV. 1 0.61$ I I I I
.EXISTW. +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED +CUMULATNEWfO PROPOSEDOAPROVEMENTS t.C.U(-_ 0.6213 �+y_ --
ST -- •-- - - -�
jEXISTING• REG GROWTH + COMMITTED +PROJECT I.C.U. j 0.629 j
p
X PrwK— paled mk l.C.U.„gl Cake Oran a S lto O.w
p Raje Wl waJea"ft LC.U. wN be greater pun 0.90
p Pta]eae0 +pqm ift I.C.U.W.Ww"imWO+ealeat wR ft IBM Van w equal to o.90
E] P+1ga1:k0- P.JM"ff. I.C.U. 1 wojW nPraaNtxO H Ca Im O¢n I.C.U. w&W pro(ea
DesoipllrA,asyslemirOxwerrerk
PROJECT: 6268 MS*Wle Way -R Mk l
712WWO5, 2:38 PM t CA I
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
F
y4e11WPT
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD(E -W) 8 MACARTHUR BLVD (NS)
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER 4275
EXISTING�PROPOSED 2005 PV HR REGIONAL COMMITTED• PROJECTED• CUMULATIVE• PROJECTED• PROJECT PROJECT V/C
n4ovFred I I 1_ 12005VA:Rasol GROWTH I PROJECT I V /CRsOOw/01 PROJECTS 1 VICRasow/ol I 1
Lana Capacity• Lana Capadry� Vohpne VaAnne vdume I PrgetlVd j VaMRe Pr wV01 Vduma i Ratio i
L
RL j 3200 181 j 0.057 j 2 j j 0.057 j j 0.057 j j o.o5r j
.I I I I { I I
M 4800 1713 0.357 R 6 0.362 148 0.383 0393
0.22
NR I6 365 0 6 1 0.231 39 0.255 0.255
� I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I
I SL I 32M I 1 59 I 0.016 I 1 i 1 1 0.019 1 I o.01s I I 0.019
ST 4" zee 0.099 3 1 0.00 � 101 � 0oe1 I I 0.01 .I
SR I NS I ( 133 1 I 1 I 10 I I I I I 1
EL 3200 - - -- I 479 F 0.149 �- 5 11 0.154 I o.ise I 0.154
ET g600 261 12M 0.250 12 20 0.257 168 0. am
I I I I I 1 I I I I i t I
1 ER I NS. I 1 237 I I 2
-T.__...__.__T_ _f_T._._-----1
WL 3200 265 0.083 3 0.084 45 0.086 0.098
1 M I ae0o I { 635 j 0.174 j 9 j W j 0.183 j 55 j 0.195 j j 0.195 j
WR I- N.S. zsa s- I y
jEXISTINGI.C.U. j 0.708 I I I I 1 I 1
(EXISTING +REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED WWROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.721 I I 1 I 1
�tEJ(ISTING�REG
GROWTH + COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE W/D PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I. C.U. --- _� -• -- -0.801
;EXISTING. REG GROWTH a COMMITTED+PROJECT I.C.U. (. 0.e01 j
❑X Pra{acw+Fged bafip LGU, we ee less Man or Kum to 9.90
❑ fiafecletl • project befit LGV, w#1 be 9reamr Man 0.80
❑ Prgedad I PM dbafSC I.C.U. ad l tF1w- W0Vamed will be mss than a epal m 0.90
❑Prtjede0 + pr*d tmfip ICU. WM F4ad Mpmenenl WR be 1058 Man I.C.U. WiOrod pra)ad
Dnc,%, M of System Inpwielnenl:
PROJECT: 4248 ManlnIIale Way - Resmumrd
712W2005,242 PM
jE1(ISTING LGV. I °�0 I I I I I I 1
IEXISTRIG +REG GROWTH +COWITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.877 I I I I I
rEXISTIHG+REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE WIO PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.GU. - -_•�__ �-` - -•;
jEJOSTING+ REG GROWTH a COMMITTED r PROJECT I.C.U. j 0.949
❑X A*cled +MOM tfaft LC.U. tWi be less Nan of equal to 0.90
ft*cled +Pmlact "Ise l.C.U."be 9Tealer than 0.90
❑ ft).0 d +"M bait I.C.U.W.Atems NtporameM wit be leas It. or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected +MiM baMC I.C.U. with pa}ect lmetpremanl" lb loss Nan l.C.U. IA Wp1lact
Deavipdgn d slatemkrPrgl'aI11NN:
PROJECT: 4248 MaNtpals Way - Rvotauranl
7/20/2005, 2:44 PM 193
a�
INTERSECTION CAPACRY VTILRATION ANALYSIS
V
wry
INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE RD IE•W) S MACMTNUR BLVD )NS)
SCENARIO: 2005 TOAE PERIOD:
PM PEAKHOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE ONLY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER
4275
1 { EXISTM I PROPOSED { 2005 PK HR I REGIONAL ' COMMITTED PROJECTED' WMIAATNE' PROJECTED'
I {V/C Iv/C
PROJECT PR04ECTVICI
{
Movw>ald PROJECT Ra0a w +01 PROJECTS
Lane Cap3dlyr Lane Capacdyr Vofwre 2005 VA: Rall91 GROWTH
t—_.— ____L "w____L_ _ — —__ -- _ —__J_ Va1u m L V0A1"BP Ore` va 1 �0"X B
R2WwPo.
t P O BG._.�0 A_^
vohne Ratio
1 m 1 3200 1 1 275 ) O.OSS 1 3 I I ON? 1
) O.OB7 )
I OOB7 1
NT 4500 502 0.105 i 5 1 ! 0.108 140
0.135
0.135
j NR j 1800 230 j 0.144 j 2 0.145 j 44
j 0.172
0,172 j
•^ SL I 3200 { I ^ 164 I D etz I 2 I 8 I 0.061 {
I 0.081 1
: 0.061 {
ST 4e00 1540 0.3z3 15 s 0.327 IN
0.362
0362
1 SR 1 N.S. I I 400 I I 4 I 10 I I
I (
I I
EL 32W ! ; 103 ; 0.0fP � 2 � 9 � 0.061 �
( GMT �
� 0,061
ET 1 4800 1 1 1136 j 0.237 j 11 i 30 j 0245 j 114
j 0269
0.2699 j
I ER 1 M_S I I Go I I I
WL 3200 089 0.215 7 1 0,218 44
0.232
0.232
j WT j 4WD j j 1075 i 0.224 j 11 j 27 j 0,232 j 160
j 0.269 j
j 0269 j
WR H.S.! I G2 I I 1 I 2 I I
I I
! 1
jE1(ISTING LGV. I °�0 I I I I I I 1
IEXISTRIG +REG GROWTH +COWITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.877 I I I I I
rEXISTIHG+REG GROWTH+ COMMITTED +CUMULATIVE WIO PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.GU. - -_•�__ �-` - -•;
jEJOSTING+ REG GROWTH a COMMITTED r PROJECT I.C.U. j 0.949
❑X A*cled +MOM tfaft LC.U. tWi be less Nan of equal to 0.90
ft*cled +Pmlact "Ise l.C.U."be 9Tealer than 0.90
❑ ft).0 d +"M bait I.C.U.W.Atems NtporameM wit be leas It. or equal to 0.90
❑ Projected +MiM baMC I.C.U. with pa}ect lmetpremanl" lb loss Nan l.C.U. IA Wp1lact
Deavipdgn d slatemkrPrgl'aI11NN:
PROJECT: 4248 MaNtpals Way - Rvotauranl
7/20/2005, 2:44 PM 193
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
(o
INTERSECTION: CAMPUS DRIVE b VON KARMAN AVE
SCENARIO: 2005 _ TIME PERIOD: AM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4302
EXISTING TRAPPM VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC-
-_t.._— TIVE ^--C- - v ^- - - - - -^ - ^ - - - - -�
~---- _••r- EXISTING PROPOSED 2W5 PK FDt ^ COMMITTED 'PROJECTED'CUMULATNE'PROJECTED I PROJECT PROJECT VIC
REGIONAL
I I 120USVICRanol I I VICRanowlol PROJECTS I WC ftwvol I l
I MOVaA6P1 I GROWTH PROJECT
Laero Capadty Lacy Capactiry Vauey Vmm Vdume
Va1c1M Racy
j Project Vd j vaume— L- PrOjecl va j
L_ - - --J - -- -._L -- -L___.
-_•-_
NL 1600 I I 46 l 0.029 I I
I 0.029 I
I OA29 I
I 0.029
I
NT 3200 ! I 549 I 0.172 I
I O.t72 F 40
I 0.184
0.184
1 NR I N.s.
1 SL 1 'Im 1^ 1 67 1 0.042 I I
-- - I 0042 I
1 0.042 I—
1^ 0.0°2 1
_...___—_ j.._.__--_ r_-_____•—_._—'_---
j-- •--- •- •— T--
• - - - -•I I
5T333
L- _- _____J 3200 1-- _- .---- L - -• - -J o.147 1-- L_' ----J
4._.._--
0.147 L__..
---i o.t6a -
- - --I o.t6o
SR I I I 137
EL 1 1800 I l 67 l OA42 ( 1
I 0.042 I
I 0.042 I
1 0,042
ET 32W 455 0,142
0.142
0.142
0.142
I ER I NS. I I IA
0.059
msW —, 9a ooss
— ' 0059
o.osa
30 o.tn �
0.177
i 017
0.177
.I
wR
'E)WING I.C.U.
(EXISTING +REG GROWTH COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.
I 0,432 I
..— __---
I (
•.•.•— _—
I
F_______— ._— __- .._--- _— ___0_-_ — T
EXISTING • REG GROWTH +COMMIRED •CUMULATIVE WIO PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I. C.U.
T__._..--
I—
0.445
r__._.._._f
EXISTING +REG GROV T = COMMITTED a PROJECT LC.U.u�----
----
••-- -__ -•-�
I -4• -_T —.445 l
.._ —_ -
❑ ftjKe0• W*d Mft l.C.U." l »Ism Oqn vegwl to O.W
-.—
❑ Projepte0• project tmft LC.U. v Oe gmw man O.W
❑ Praieaea+acknllamc LC.u. lwsnemnlRwwemeatw8 na lass nwlvemw LOO.W
❑ PlpjsaeE+ prgeanaxyLC. u. wlnlmdealspwamenlvbncecessmanLC .u.wlmwtarq�+
Dwoptoa Of system lfl o meet
PROJECT: 4248 MertlrNNS Way- Reshu=I
7120Y2005, 2:44 PM
fg
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c .
n
INTERSECTION. CAMPUS DRIVE d VON KARMAN AVE
SCENARIO: 2005 TIME PERIOD.' PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DALY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION NUMBER: 4302
EXISTlt4G PROPOSED 200.5 PK HR REGIONAL COMMITTED' PROJECTED ' CUMULATIVE ' PROJECTED' PROJECT
MovemNll { { i PROJECT
I I V/CR@vow { PROJECTS I
{ PROJECTVIC
GROWTH PROJECT V/CRa6owol
Late Capadly'Lale Capedry Vdure Voa1m0
VgOmq Vdurte Ro}ed Vd YoL1re RojaU Vd
Ratio
i �
j NI. j 1601) j j 77 j 0.046 1 I I oa8 j j 0.048 j
j 0.046 j
I I I I I I { I I
I
NT 3200 663 Od26 0.128 44 0.146
0.140
j NR j N.S. j j 189 I { { { { I I
I SL I 1w0 I I 223 I 0.139 I —• -- { I 0139 I I 0.139 {
I 0.139
ST e]3 42
�'-- -• - - -J 3200 0.298 0.298 I---- _.. —.I o.311 I
I 0.311
I SR I I I 2w I I I I I I I
_-•� —•• —
I I
EL 18W 18i 6.123 I I I 0.123 0.123
0.123
ET { 3200 I { 830 j 0.197 { I { 0.197 0.197
0.797 j
{ ER I N.S. 1 I IN { 1 { 1 I I 1
4
WL two 75 0047 0.047 0.047
o.an
I WT I I I 814 I I I I I I I
I I
l---1 320 0.284 0.28
a 0.264
{ I I I I I I I I
wR 98
I i
j"STING I.C.U. j 0.753
IUMTING a REG GROWTH- COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LCU. I 0.753 I { { I I
!EXISTING GROWTH • COMMITTED •CIMULAINE W/O PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. A 0.767
iEY.15TING +REG GROWTH* COMMITTED • PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.767 i
❑X Projedeo+project traf6C LC.U. will be legs titan or xW W0.90
MProlacte0+ Pm7ed tratw l.C.U.wm w qra wma00.90
❑ Prdeded - Project traffic I.C.U. w1syalorm ImP iIvmIl to be lags tl m equal W 0.90
❑ Projede4 +PlItOd U.T. I.C.U. WM VW improvement.0 be les9 man I.C.U. wllooul"act
Dssdlptim oI ayslcae elpovenem:
PROJECT: 42M Maftgale Way- Restawant
7/20/2005, 244 PM 195
REbI'I!Illil
I Ia
I
�kNl�lllll��l
jyq
a mr t
N
J
III
A