The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCooling Medical Bldg (PA2004-059)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. r& a. August 19, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208, rung @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Traffic Study No. 2004- 002(PA2004 -059) 1901 Westclif Drive APPLICANT: Richard L. Cooling representing Westcliff Investors, LLC. RECOMMENDATION Approve Traffic Study No. 2004 -002 subject to the findings and conditions of approval included within the attached draft resolution. DISCUSSION Site /Project Overview: The applicant requests approval of a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) to facilitate the construction of a 12,628 square foot medical office building at the southwest comer of the property. Presently improved with a medical facility, the 1.65 acre property is zoned APF (Administrative Professional Financial) and has a General Plan land use designation of Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial. The applicant is proposing to add a new surgical center to the existing 17,371 square foot medical facility, which is housed in three. separate buildings. The new surgical center building is designed to have surface parking on the ground level with two stories of medical space above. The subject property has two frontages, one on Westcliff Drive and the other one on Sherington Place. The proposed development is planned and designed to fully comply with applicable development standards of the Zoning Code, and the only required approval before the issuance of building permits is a traffic study. "$:. �r , �; Traffic Study No. 2004 -002 August 19, 2004 Page 3 A traffic study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) when a project will generate more than 300 average daily trips (ADT). A copy of the TPO is attached as Exhibit 2 for reference. The City Traffic Engineer prepared a preliminary estimate of trips and concluded that a traffic study would be required for the proposed medical office building. A traffic study has been prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates (Exhibit 3) under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines. Analysis 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 the analysis has been conducted for the year 2006. The study area is generally bounded by East 19th Street/Dover Drive to the north, Orange Avenue to the west, Coast Highway to the south and Dover Drive to the east. Portions of the study area are in both the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. The proposed 12,628 square foot surgical center is forecast to generate 631 new daily trips with 38 new trips during the morning, and 63 new trips during the evening peak hour. The study evaluates eleven (11) intersections, eight of these are located in Newport Beach and the remaining intersections are in Costa Mesa. Potential impacts to the City of Newport Beach intersections were analyzed using the methodology required by the TPO. The three intersections within the City of Costa Mesa are analyzed using Costa Mesa's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) methodology. Although the methods of traffic impact analysis differ, the threshold of significance is the same for both cities. Both cities consider LOS D as the upper limit of 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 project is forecast to contribute one percent or more to the traffic volume at five intersections in Newport Beach: • Coast Hwy. & Dover Dr. / Bayshore Dr. • Irvine Ave. & Dover Dr. / 19th St. • Irvine Ave. & Westcliff Dr. / 17th St. • Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr. • Dover Dr. & Castaways Ln. / 161h St. The other three intersections were omitted from further ICU analysis as they did not meet the One Percent Test per the TPO. Traffic Study No. 2004 -002 August 19, 2004 Page 4 The Costa Mesa intersections are not subject to the one percent test as with the City of Newport Beach intersections; however, ICU analysis was performed. The study concludes that the five intersections within Newport Beach and three within Costa Mesa are forecast to continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service during both the morning and'evening peak hours and therefore no mitigation is required. The traffic study also performed future traffic analysis which includes background growth, approved, and cumulative projects. The City of Newport Beach identified traffic growth from 16 approved projects that are anticipated for completion within the next few years and 14 reasonably foreseeable projects. The City of Costa Mesa has no approved projects and only one reasonably foreseeable project. Based on the criteria set by the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, the proposed project does not exceed the critical threshold of deterioration from LOS D to E, or an increase of 0.01 or more of the ICU at any intersection operating at LOS E. The project in a cumulative sense will not significantly contribute to unsatisfactory operating conditions at all the eleven (11) study intersections and no mitigation measures are required. 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 32 (In-fill Development Projects). This project is fully consistent with the General Plan and Zoning provisions and the site is not any sensitive as it is fully developed presently. 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. Prepared by: Submitted by: M. Ung, ss ciate Planner Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director 1. Draft Resolution No. 2004 -_; findings and conditions of approval 2. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) 3. Traffic Impact Analysis dated July, 2004 4. Project Plans EXHIBIT 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL 6 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2004-002 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE (PA2004 -059). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Richard Cooling, representing Westcliff Investors, LLC. with respect to property located at 1901 Westcliff Drive and legally described as Lot 4 and the southeasterly 110 feet of Lot 3 of Tract No. 4225, requesting approval of Traffic Study No. 2004 -002 that will facilitate the construction of a 12,628 square foot medical office building. The 1.65 acre site is zoned APF (Administrative Professional Financial) and has a General Plan land use designation of Administrative, Professional, & Financial Commercial. WHEREAS; a public hearing was held on August 19, 2004, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows: a) The proposed 12,628 square foot medical office building is expected to generate 631 new daily trips with 38 new trips during the morning, and 63 new trips during the evening peak hour. b) A traffic study, entitled Traffic Impact Analysis for 1901 Westcliff Drive, Newport Beach, California (Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, July, 2004), was prepared for the project in compliance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). c) The study evaluates eight (8) Newport Beach intersections. The project is forecast to contribute one percent or more to the traffic volume to five intersections of the study intersections and the other three intersections were omitted from further ICU. d) The ICU analysis shows the five intersections are forecast to continue to operate with satisfactory levels of service during both peak hours and, therefore, no mitigation measures are required. e) The traffic study also evaluated three (3) intersections at the request of the City of Costa Mesa. ICU analysis of these intersections shows that they are forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS. Mi City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 f) The traffic study performed a cumulative traffic analysis. The City of Newport Beach identified traffic growth from 16 approved projects that are anticipated for completion within the next few years and 14 reasonably foreseeable projects. The City of Costa Mesa has no approved projects and only one reasonably foreseeable project. Based on the criteria set by the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, the proposed project does not exceed the critical threshold of deterioration from LOS D to E, or an increase of 0.01 or more of the ICU at any intersection operating at LOS E. The project in a cumulative sense will not significantly contribute to unsatisfactory operating conditions at all the eleven (11) study intersections and no mitigation measures are required. g) The project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32 - In- Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act. The project will occur on a 72,000 square feet site within the City of Newport Beach corporate limits and the site is surrounded by urban uses. The site is presently developed with an existing 17,371 square foot medical facility which consists of three separate buildings and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project is fully consistent with the General Plan and Zoning provisions. Approval of the project will not create any significant impacts to traffic, noise, air, and water quality in compliance with existing codes, policies and regulations of the City of Newport Beach. The traffic study concludes no significant impacts to area intersections. Lastly, adequate utility services and other public services presently exist and are so located to serve the project site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Traffic Study No. 2004 -002, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A"attached. 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 or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1e DAY OF AUGUST, 2004. FO-W M Larry Tucker, Chairman Jeffrey Cole, Secretary AYES: ABSENT: NOES: 0 City of Planning Commission EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Traffic Study No. 2004 -002 Newport Beach Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 The development shall conform to all applicable zoning requirements. Development authorized per this approval shall not exceed 12,628 square feet of medical office use, which may includes outpatient surgical services. 2. Traffic Study No. 2004 -002 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval pursuant to Section 15.40.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This approval shall be deemed exercised by the issuance of a building permit to construct the proposed office building. 3. Pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, construction of the proposed office building shall be completed no more than 60 months from the date of final approval of Traffic Study No. 2004 -002. 0 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. 2765,1777,1787, 85-30, 86-10 and 94-2. 15.411.010 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- 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) 15.40.030 Standards for Approval - Fmdings— 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: 1. 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 569 (Newport Beach 9 -99) 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 constructed or funded by, or contdbu- 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)(l)(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: (Ne.T�, Bmab 9-99) 570 (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(B)(1)(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 - ment(s) 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 improvements) 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 1� 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 to be 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)(6), 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 irprovement(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 57I 15.40.030 implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section. 15.40.030 (13)(1)(6). 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) 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. This 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: (Ne -pua such 11 -99) 13 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 ofrhe 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(8)(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 a building 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 Definitions. 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 ms`s" (Nmpm Beach .,11-99) 572 1 L 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 (I%) 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(13)(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 `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. Direct the 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 (Newport Beach 9-99) 15 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- R 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 mtersec- tioa 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- (Newport Beach 9 -99) 574, dated with other hearings required by the project The hearing shall be noticed in the manner 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 W 15.40.075 the Newport Beach Municipal Code is intended to address the overall impact of development on the circulation system. Conditions or fees imposed putsuant.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. 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: 7.. 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) 15.40.080 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 (Neapon Beach 9 -99) 1I ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR EVIPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 1. General. These Administrative .Procedures..(Procedures) apply 10 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 ATBTAM or the most current version of the rM 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. (Newport Beach 9 -99) 574-2 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 sha4 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: 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 V. 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 (N s =m 9.99) 1R f. 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 trip 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 measures) 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 measure(s) will be permanently implemented. The Project proponent must consent to make permanent implementation of the measures) 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 ITE 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 estabkishing 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 andlor post - Project field counts specified in Section 3.d.i. 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; (.Newpcn Beach 9 -99) 574-4 �b 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 Iist of Committed Projects and, at least annually, update the Iist 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 —J0 ICU C .71—.80 ICU D .81—.96 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: the assumptions in NTBTAM 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; 574 -5 (vewpw Beach 9 -99) Al 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 (1 %) 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 terminated. 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 C2. 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 (I %) or more during any morning or evening Peak Hour Period. 5. Traffic Study Methodolow. 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 SANDAL 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; (Newport Bma, 9.99) 574 -6 1 V _ 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. The Traffic Study shall, for each Improvement identified pursuant to Subsection e., estimate the cost of making 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. 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. 574-7 (Newport Beach 9 -99) p 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.l.c., or 15.40.030 B.2. 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: 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; (Newport B=b 9 -99) 574-8 ,9A 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 Improvements) 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 (Newpon Beach 9 -99) ►iJ7ai`►3 �►.i:3 PRIMARY INTERSECTIONS Bayview and Bristol Birch and Bristol North Birch and Bristol Campus and Bristol Campus and Bristol North Campus and Von Karman Coast Highway and Avocado Coast Highway and Bayside Coast Highway and DovWBayshore 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 Bach 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 574 -10 EXHIBIT 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT DATE JULY 2004 q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared for City of Newport Beach Prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 400 Oceangate, Suite 480 Long Beach, CA 90802 July 2004 J04 -1632 1901 Westcli, ffSurgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ ............................... I 1.1 PROJECT SCOPE AND ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................... ............................... 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................... ............................... 3 2.1 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................. ............................... 3 2.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ............................................. ..............................4 23 EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ........................................................ ..............................4 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS ............................................. ............................... 6 3.1 BACKGROUND GROWTH, APPROVED AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS ........ ..............................6 3.2 PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .................................................. ..............................9 3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ................... ..............................9 3.4 ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS ........................................... ..............................9 15 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.. .............. ............ ..................... 13 3.6 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.... 16 4.0 PARKING AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS ........ .............................19 4.1 PARKING SUPPLYANDANALYSIS ........................................................... .............................19 4.2 ON -SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS ........................................................ ............................... 19 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................... .............................19 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. c� i �, 1901 Westel ff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report List of Tables TABLE I LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS ......................................................... ............................... 3 TABLE 2 EXISTING WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............................... 4 TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING . ............................... 9 TABLE 4 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OFSERVICE ANALYSIS ........... . ................................. .... .......................... ... .................... ........ 13 TABLE 5 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ................. ............................... 16 List of Figures FIGURE1 SITE SKETCH PLAN ................................................................ ............................... I FIGURE 2 STUDY AREA AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS 2 FIGURE 3 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................ ............................... 5 FIGURE 4 APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................. 7 FIGURE 5 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES...... .................. 8 FIGURE 6 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES ................. ............................... I I FIGURE 7 PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ........................ .............................12 FIGURE 8 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 14 FIGURE 9 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFICVOLUMES .................................................................. .............................15 FIGURE 10 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFICVOLUMES .................................................................. .............................17 FIGURE 11 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES PEAKHOUR .......................................... .............................18 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION This study is a Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) study of a proposed addition to the existing medical office buildings at the 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center. The project site is located on Westcliff Drive /17s' Street between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive. Figure 1 shows the proposed site plan. The study area is generally bounded by East 19'h Street/Dover Drive to the north, Orange Avenue to the west, Coast Highway to the south and Dover Drive to the east; portions of the study area are in both the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. The proposed project adds a 12,628 square foot Surgical Center on the southwest corner of the property. The project is forecast to open in year 2005, therefore the analysis has been conducted for the year 2006. This report represents a traffic analysis of near term traffic conditions consistent with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City of Costa Mesa Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) methodology. Although the TPO does not require a cumulative projects analysis, this analysis was included to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City of Costa Mesa TIA. 1.1 Project Scope and Assumptions Meyer MohaddesAssociates (MMA) has analyzed the traffic and parking impacts of this proposed expansion. This analysis considered such factors as: • future ambient growth assumptions along with `no project' and `with project' impacts • project related trip generation rates and trip distribution patterns and assignments • roadway geometries and conditions in the vicinity of the site as a result of project • existing/ future intersection operating conditions for the morning and evening peak hour/ period • traffic impacts upon adjacent street network and 11 intersections • local circulation / parking impacts • alternative access plans As part of this study eleven intersections were analyzed in the Cities ofNewport Beach and Costa Mesa. The eleven study intersections are listed below: City of Newport Beach intersections: 1. Coast Hwy & Riverside Ave 2. Coast Hwy & Tustin Ave 3. Coast Hwy & Dover Dr / Bayshore Dr 4. Coast Hwy & Bayside Dr 5. Irvine Ave & Dover Dr / 19th St 6. Irvine Ave & Westcliff Dr / 17th St 7. Dover Dr & Westcliff Or 8. Dover Dr & Castaways Ln / 16th St City of Costa Mesa intersections: 9. Orange Ave & 17th St 10. Santa Ana Ave & 17th St 11. Tustin Ave & 17th St The study area and analyzed intersections are shown on Figure 2. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. rl, 1 J 1901 WestcliSurgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report (9 z a 1 m PARKING BUILDING 1 NEWPORT BEACH 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE h7c.. WESTCLIFF DR PARKING n PARKING BUILDING 2 z Ta C7 Z BUILDING 3 if 1 t--- PARKING SHERINGTON PL LEGEND: <=:'J INTERNAL CIRCULATION PATTERN 0 WTMSC LE f' FIGURE 1 SITE SKETCH Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. 1 // Z PROPOSED SURGICAL ; _ _ . _ as CENTER (ABOVE) `_--PARKING ---•--' NEWPORT BEACH 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE h7c.. WESTCLIFF DR PARKING n PARKING BUILDING 2 z Ta C7 Z BUILDING 3 if 1 t--- PARKING SHERINGTON PL LEGEND: <=:'J INTERNAL CIRCULATION PATTERN 0 WTMSC LE f' FIGURE 1 SITE SKETCH Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. 1 // d .\ Q \ 3� )� ■ ]. % §2 #w± e # 1 ƒ } ___ % PAIR G t u # \ _ _ & 2 . )\ k( `k _0 �(o � ] C5 �\ _ �� ■ ■7( 3� 1901 Westcl iSurgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report The analysis contained in this report has been completed according to the guidelines set forth by the City of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Consistent with TPO methodology, the eight City of Newport Beach study area intersections were evaluated to identify any locations where the project has the potential to increase traffic on any leg of the intersection by I percent or more in the existing plus approved projects condition. Intersections where the project would not increase traffic on any leg by 1 percent or more would not require further analysis. The three intersections within City of Costa Mesa are analyzed using that City's methodology. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section discusses existing conditions and the analytical approach to the traffic analysis. 2.1 Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of intersection analysis, per the City ofNewport Beach and City of Costa Mesa, was used to determine the intersection volume -to- capacity ratio (V /C) and corresponding level of service (LOS) based on the turning movements and intersection characteristics at the signalized intersections. A capacity value of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane was used. The ICU is calculated by adding the critical conflicting movement's V/C ratios. The ICU for the intersection corresponds to a LOS value, which describes the intersection operations. The Levels of Service vary from A through F, with A representing the best possible conditions, free flow, and F representing forced flow or failing/jammed conditions. Generally, LOS D or better is considered acceptable in urban areas such as the study area for the proposed project. For this analysis, the ranges of ICU summarized in Table 1 were used to determine LOS for study intersections. Table 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS The measure of threshold of significance is quite similar for City of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa. The Cities both consider LOS D (0.90 or less volume to capacity ratio) as the upper limit of 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 increase the ICU by 0.01 or more. Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 3 l Interpretation Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) LOS A Excellent operation - free -flow 0.00-0.60 B I—D Very good operation - stable flow, little or no delays 0.61-0.70 C Good operation - slight delays 0.71-0.80 Fair operation – noticeable delays, queuing observed 0.81 -0.90 E Poor operation - long delays, near or at capacity 0.91-1.00 F Forced flow – congestion Above 1.00 Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Chapter 15.40, Appendix A, Subsection 3-j, Year 1991 The measure of threshold of significance is quite similar for City of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa. The Cities both consider LOS D (0.90 or less volume to capacity ratio) as the upper limit of 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 increase the ICU by 0.01 or more. Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 3 l 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report 2.2 Existing Traffic Operations Analysis The existing traffic operation conditions of the eleven study intersections were analyzed using peak hour traffic volumes that were provided by the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Based on the peak hour traffic volumes in the study area and the analytical methodology described in Section 2. 1, the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection levels of service were assessed at the eleven study intersections. All intersection capacity analyses were performed using the ICU method spreadsheets provide by the City of Newport Beach and some new spreadsheets were made for analyzing City of Costa Mesa intersections. The intersection capacity worksheets are attached as an Appendix to this report. 2.3 Existing Intersection Analysis Figure 3 illustrates the existing traffic volumes and turning movements at the eleven study intersections during the weekday peak hours. Table 2 summarizes the weekday peak hour levels of service. As discussed above, the LOS is determined using the ICU analysis methodology for the study area intersections. It can be noted that all study area intersections operate at a satisfactory LOS during both peak hours. Table 2 EXISTING WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Intersection Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS City of Newport Beach Intersections Coast Hwy & Riverside Ave 0.71 C 0.72 C Coast Hwy & Tustin Ave 0.70 B 0.60 A Coast Hwy & Dover Dr / Ba shore Dr 0.74 C 0.76 C Coast Hwy & Ba side Dr 0.69 B 0.65 B Irvine Ave & Dover Dr / 19th St 0.56 A 0.59 A Irvine Ave & Westcliff Dr / 17th St 0.55 A 0.79 C Dover Dr & Westcliff Dr 0.42 A 0.61 B Dover Dr & Castaways Ln / 16th St 0.44 A 0.55 A City of Costa Mesa Intersections Orange Ave & 17th St 0.60 A 0.73 C Santa Ana Ave & 17th St 0.53 A 0.65 B Tustin Ave & 17th St 0.52 A 0.61 B Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 4 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report 1.WCmA MW /(b. eiw zwGa k* /AaA 3. WC " /QP DIBg N A WCOV3 MW I0aynkBCY $�Y F13322S(123�6e) c+�K F7 1a 1307a, .1 !r� 3„ .114 f 44,(b�7, 2136(116361 cl 2 691 731,E ^ �m ti� ^dry \ 37(221 �a �' n gi If n v 6. 10. NEWPORT BEACH 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE �oo-oisaawnr_isxwmw 7. �g�D �0l 11. Tnll�gw/ I M19 O i PROMCT SITE Q worroscniE LFGEN 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY INTERSECTIONS ■ CITY OF COSTA MESA STUDY INTERSECTIONS )0(Y)C) AM(PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUME FIGURE 3 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. 5 1901 Westcl ff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS 3.1 Background Growth, Approved and Cumulative Projects To determine future traffic volumes on the study area roadways and intersections, three primary variables were considered. These include a determination of the annual ambient traffic growth rate (based on the recent years' traffic growth trends in the study area), specific approved development projects in the area and growth due to cumulative projects, which may significantly affect increases in local tragic. An ambient background traffic growth rate of 1.00 percent per year was assumed for the City ofNewport Beach and 2.00 percent per year for the City of Costa Mesa, and these are consistent with the background growth rates used in studies in the surrounding areas. The City of Newport Beach has identified traffic growth from 16 approved projects that are anticipated for completion within the next few years. The City of Costa Mesa did not provide any approved projects for this analysis. In addition, traffic from 14 reasonably foreseeable projects within the City ofNewport Beach and one project within the City of Costa Mesa were also added as part of cumulative analysis (consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)). The Appendix contains the trip generation and distribution from cumulative projects based on their size and location. The approved projects peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 4 and the cumulative projects peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5. Expected traffic generated from these projects has been estimated by applying standard trip generation rate data derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines. For each project, the forecast future trip generation has been estimated based on type of land use proposed and size of building area. For purposes of estimating existing plus approved projects plus cumulative projects traffic condition and their associated levels of service, those trips were then assigned to the eleven study intersections. The forecasts of the growth in traffic resulting from cumulative developments and ambient growth provide a conservative `worst -case scenario' projection of future conditions. This is due to a number of reasons: 1. traffic generated by any land uses displaced by the proposed cumulative developments has not been subtracted from existing counts; 2, trips are all treated as new trips, with no reduction for pass -by trips or redistribution of existing trips to the new land uses; 3. trips between new developments are treated as two separate trips. Although this methodology causes future background traffic to be overstated, this approach is consistent with City of Newport Beach policies for traffic studies. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 31 6 1901 Westcl ff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report ].wemzem] /revave rtx 2 WfbobllMyliWmAVe 3. WcmCNwlID D/�D 4. we "ff$00ftP o _ '� -3IS) 'Y� :791941 i '� *61bA5I 141141 '1t r /r /y 97(631 —► 63260' ♦ i?' S tui¢AVe /Nea P /19T 51 6. Nice A�21 Q11]IIiT ].W LYM1YB�D B. purwp /6C9m,0yt 11, /1dM1 S1 �\ 1 A� 7f xii 9.0 Aw/,]mbY I to.xma Am A.�ri]ms I ,/.nn N.Il]ma X/N oa NOT TO $CASE PROJECT ITIE LEGEND: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY INTERSECTIONS ■ CITY OF COSTA MESA STUDY INTERSECTIONS XX(XX) AM(PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES RESULTING FROM APPROVED PROJECTS /r\ AftWt- 4SS0dWes tnl~ An n1. Company NEWPORT BEACH FIGURE 4 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE Approved Projects Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE .roan,sgrnraw_i�NVVw Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 7 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center TPD Traffic Analysis Report 1.wO MW /r te 9.Oi Po /17M 31 �i J7I� 2WC Nxy /T A p, �t 6. Nbe FVe /Wazk88prl 17m Sf 10. 5onb Na loa/ 1M a NEWPORT BEACH 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 00K r� h7a 3. WO "/m a /BUy D a L119(70) ° X388(2301 l�. f- -* 2(4)—f 1 t 190(327) d� �HY,�O \rIy 11. T� /17Ms a ob PROTECT • STIR L .111. 508(2971 2 5 0142 61—► 8.O G /Cmio«a W16%81 g1\ ♦ ♦�b6 Q NMIYOE E LEGEND: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY INTERSECTIONS . CITY OF COSTA MESA XX0 Oq AKPM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES RESULTING FROM CUMULATIVE PROJECTS FIGURE 5 Cumulative Projects Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.( 8 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report 3.2 Proposed Project Trip Generation The project proposes to add of 12,628 square feet of new facilities for a Surgical Center Building, in addition to an existing 17,371 square feet in three buildings. The primary access to the site will be provided via Westcliff Drive. In order to assess the impacts of the proposed project, the number of new trips the project site could be expected to generate on a typical weekday and weekend day must be estimated and added to the roadway system. Trip generation rates / equations derived from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) are utilized to estimate the number of trips associated with the project. Table 3 summarizes the trip estimates for each of the Project uses. The Project is expected to generate 631 trips per day with 38 trips in the AM peak hour and 63 trips in the PM peak hour. Table 3 TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING TSF: Thousand Square Feet 3.3 Proposed Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The geographic distribution of traffic is dependent on several factors. These factors include the type and density of proposed land uses, the geographic distribution of population from which the employees and potential customers/users of the proposed project are drawn, and the location of the project in relation to the surrounding street system. The trip distribution assumptions are used to determine the origin and destination of the trips, generated by the project. These distributions were reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach staff. Figure 6 shows the project trip distribution and Figure 7 shows the project trip assignment applied to the roadway network. Using this distribution, project trips to and from the project have been calculated through the eleven study intersections. 3.4 One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis The one - percent traffic volume analysis for all the potentially impacted intersections was performed according to the City of Newport Beach Traffic study guidelines. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the intersections where the project generated traffic on any leg of the intersection will be equal or more than one- percent of the traffic generated by existing plus approved projects. The following intersections were identified as having a project contribution of one - percent or more from the existing plus approved projects generated traffic. • Coast Hwy & Dover Dr / Bayshore Dr • Irvine Ave & Dover Dr / 19th St • Irvine Ave & Westcliff Dr / 17th St • Dover Dr & Westcliff Dr • Dover Dr & Castaways Ln / 16th St Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. �( 9 Area sq -ft NBTM Trip Rate # Trips Generated Land Use AM PM Total In Out In Out 24 -Hour Medical Office Building 24 Rates 2.40 /TSF 0.60 /TSF 1.50 /TSF 3.50 /TSF 50.00 /TSF Medical Office Building 12,628 24 30 8 19 44 631 Total 38 63 631 TSF: Thousand Square Feet 3.3 Proposed Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The geographic distribution of traffic is dependent on several factors. These factors include the type and density of proposed land uses, the geographic distribution of population from which the employees and potential customers/users of the proposed project are drawn, and the location of the project in relation to the surrounding street system. The trip distribution assumptions are used to determine the origin and destination of the trips, generated by the project. These distributions were reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach staff. Figure 6 shows the project trip distribution and Figure 7 shows the project trip assignment applied to the roadway network. Using this distribution, project trips to and from the project have been calculated through the eleven study intersections. 3.4 One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis The one - percent traffic volume analysis for all the potentially impacted intersections was performed according to the City of Newport Beach Traffic study guidelines. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the intersections where the project generated traffic on any leg of the intersection will be equal or more than one- percent of the traffic generated by existing plus approved projects. The following intersections were identified as having a project contribution of one - percent or more from the existing plus approved projects generated traffic. • Coast Hwy & Dover Dr / Bayshore Dr • Irvine Ave & Dover Dr / 19th St • Irvine Ave & Westcliff Dr / 17th St • Dover Dr & Westcliff Dr • Dover Dr & Castaways Ln / 16th St Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. �( 9 1901 WestcliSurgical Center TPO Traffc Analysis Report Only approved project trips are added to the existing plus projected traffic for one - percent volume analysis. This is a more conservative approach as compared to the addition of cumulative projects. Because the addition of cumulative trips to the future traffic volume would generate greater traffic volume, the project contribution would also have to be greater in order to contribute one - percent to any leg of the intersection. As a result, the same five intersections are analyzed in both the existing plus approved projects and existing plus approved plus cumulative projects conditions. The one - percent volume analysis worksheets are shown in the Appendix. For purpose of project impact analysis, the five intersections identified above will be considered the study area intersections for the City of Newport Beach. It is not necessary to analyze the remaining three intersections from the City of Newport Beach since the project will not increase the traffic on any leg of these intersections by one - percent or more. The City of Costa Mesa has requested to add following three intersections to the analysis; these are located in the City of Costa Mesa jurisdiction. • Orange Ave & 17th St • Santa Ana Ave & 17th St • Tustin Ave & 17th St Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 10\ � ) § \ �� * a 2 ® : F-O ƒf � /* / \ e § ! if § \ ! / % � o *± f k ƒ 2 PawmA� %moo ® k § ~ \ � ■ \ % ® (( - §§ 0. ow Z- MM ear ( ( ) : �\0 \/ ] @ f ` e ■ \ �� 1901 WestcliSurgical Center TPD Traffic Analysis Report 1.WCmsIMWlllrvsn9tle Me 2. WCa M /ReM1lfve d WCaoA Hxy /Owa p /BryiwieU 0. WCmYNM'/ A L L rns .114 r'ISl t, 1 * r► 41 1 r► Siaj vi * r /poi a.� 1 1 * 1 ��a /r Slaj VI 5( 1 2111) —► S. Wine NVel�rn G /19M S1 6. WTe HVaINkTCM111IX /1)M St 1. NSSrp/WeskplIX B. Oovan IX / CpAavgla N / 1 EM 51 x IO. SGMa PM Ma /1Mn $f NEWPORT BEACH 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ,m.o+apmusr_isxnxcm //X. 11.R k 117MS a 8 e NOTTOSC E PROJRCr ••••• Sl7i LEGEND, 40 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY INTERSECTION CITY OF COSTA MESA STUDY INTERSECTION XX(YJC) AM(PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES R BY THE PROJECT FIGURE 7 Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. j, 12 q J 1901 Westcl ff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report 3.5 Existing plus Approved Projects Traffic Analysis The intersection analysis methodology used for the existing plus approved projects condition is the same as that used to analyze the existing conditions. An existing plus approved project level of service analysis was prepared for the intersections with a project contribution of one - percent or more. The results ofthe analysis of the existing plus approved plus project traffic conditions for the five signalized study intersections within the City of Newport Beach are summarized in Table 4. The City of Costa Mesa does not have any approved projects in the vicinity of the proposed project, so the three intersections that located in the City of Costa Mesa, only future ambient growth is considered. Based on future ambient growth, as well as anticipated developments (or committed projects) discussed earlier in this report, two out of eight signalized intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D during the weekday PM peak period, compared to no intersections in AM peak period having LOS of worse than C. The existing plus approved projects traffic volumes are shown in Figure 8. An intersection analysis of the existing plus approved conditions was also conducted. This analysis consists of the existing plus approved projects plus the project. The results of the analysis at the five intersections within the City of Newport Beach and the three intersections within the City of Costa Mesa are also shown in Table 4, and are compared to the existing plus approved projects analysis. There is no change in the level of service at any of the intersections. No intersections deteriorate to LOS E; therefore no mitigation measures are required. Figure 9 shows the existing plus approved projects weekday peak hour traffic volumes. The ICU worksheets for this analysis are provided in the Appendix. Table 4 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc.; L 13 1 Existing plus Background Existing plus ackl round plus Project Intersection AM Peak I Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU I LOS Change in ICU Change ICU LOS in ICU ICU LOS ICU LOS City of Newport Beach Intersections Coast Hwy & Dover Dr / Ba shore Dr 0.78 C 0.81 D 0.78 C 0.000 0.81 D 0.003 Irvine Ave & Dover Dr / 19th St 0.58 A 0.61 B 0.58 A 0.001 0.61 B 0.001 Irvine Ave & Westcliff Dr / 17th St 0.57 A 0.82 D 0.57 A 0.005 0.82 D 0.008 Dover Dr &Westcliff Dr 0.43 A 0.63 B 0.44 A 0.003 0.63 B 0.002 Dover Dr & Castaways Ln / 16th St 0.45 A 0.57 A 0.46 A 0.003 0.57 A 0.004 City of Costa Mesa Intersections Orange Ave & 17th St 0.63. B 0.70 C 0.63 B 0.002 0.71 C 0.005 Santa Ana Ave & 17th St 0.56 A 0.69 B 0.56 A 1 0.003 0.70 B 0.005 Tustin Ave & 17th St 0.57 A 0.65 B 0.57 1 A 1 0.003 0.65 B 0.004 Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc.; L 13 1 1901 Westcl iSurgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report 1 2 WC Mw /TU Aw I A WC H"IQM D /BVy D A WCOmYH"fBVJe U S Kite AVe/ pot4t P/ 19111 5, 9 3 0 'm D m i a? (9I 6. KP2 Mg f W2NCIiR p/ 1 ]II, 9 NEWPORTBEACH 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ,00a+aoaun.r.lsw+smoo I.00V<vpMle WN 11. Nsfn roc / 1Tt� 5t m_ 8. Oovei p /COnbwo,a N/ lblh S hie, FIGURE 8 Existing plus Approved Projects Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. `� 14 `'L m` NOT TO SCALE PROIEGT .... 317E LEGEND- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY INTERSECTION CITY OF COSTA MESA Dr STUDY INTERSECTION XX(XX) AM(PM) PEAK HOUR lest Coast Hwy VOLUMES hie, FIGURE 8 Existing plus Approved Projects Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. `� 14 `'L 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center TP4 Traffic Analysis Report 1.WCaae11MV!@.eNtleRre 2. WCwOM+ I/ AW A WCemi Xw/ /,Q»e1PIBaNraeR 0. WCaa4 aeyl BOyydeR 1 a m_ -2 13491 '�2713U) �2 4--1447125341 v v n r 17383239) �7z'�� r"�I .114 r� °4) S/7t259 3fl� f� I'� 277 2297311823 =°O—i 28 0 ggg 16 \ 4 3 h1�ry� l 1� na$ 5. YVi�elu0 /OTwU /14X91 6.6wieAVeJWeaMR /1Mi 9t ]. MNaPN%dc01R &W/n PICaAawT' +N/161M19 o 9.Om'{c AVe /17A 51� 10. bMa Pna P»�•/•1)Ih51 11.finY�lan /iM9 / NOTe LE 73Cr2$ tH� LEGEND0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY INTERSECTION CITY OF COSTA MESA Dr STUDY INTERSECTION AM(PM)PEAK HOUR feat CoaXX(� VOLUMES NEWPORT BEACH FIGURE 9 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. 1(� 15 Lt 1901 Westcl ff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report 3.6 Existing plus Approved Projects plus Cumulative Projects Traffic Analysis Analyses have also been performed for existing plus approved projects plus cumulative projects plus proposed project conditions, the results are compiled in Table 5 below. This cumulative analysis is not called for as part of the TPO, but is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and was requested by the Cities to address specific cumulative projects. All five intersections from City of Newport Beach that are identified earlier in this report along with the three intersections from the City of Cost Mesa's City staff request are included in this analysis. The cumulative projects trip generation and distribution for each reasonably foreseeable project are provided in the Appendix. Trips from these projects are added to existing plus approved projects condition and analyzed for both without- and with - the proposed project. Figure 10 summarizes the existing plus approved projects plus cumulative project weekday peak hour volumes, while the existing plus approved projects plus cumulative project plus, project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 11. Table 5 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PLUS PROPOSEDPROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The results show no difference in LOS without and with project conditions for the eight intersections. The intersections will continue to operate with an acceptable level of service, with no deterioration in the operating Level of Service. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 16 - i�1 Existing plus Background Existing plus Background plus Cumulative plus Cumulative Projects Projects [us Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Change Change Hour Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS in ICU in ICU City of Newport Beach Intersections Coast Hwy & Dover Dr / 0,83 D 0.86 D 0.83 D 0.000 0.87 D 0.003 Ba shore Dr Irvine Ave & Dover Dr / 0.58 A 0.61 B 0.58 A 0.001 0.61 B 0.002 19th St Irvine Ave & Westeliff 0.58 A 0.84 D 0.59 A 0.004 0.84 D 0.003 Dr / 17th St Dover Dr & Westcliff Dr 0.46 A 0.65 B 0.46 A 0.002 0.65 B 0.002 Dover Dr & Castaways 0.47 A 0.59 A 0.47 A 0.003 0.59 A 0.004 Ln / 16th St City of Costa Mesa Intersections Orange Ave & 17th St 0.66 D 0.72 D 0.66 D 0.002 0.73 D 0.004 Santa Ana Ave & 17th St 0.57 A 0.71 B 0.58 A 0.003 0.71 B 0.005 Tustin Ave & 17th St 1 0.58 A 0.67 A 0.58 A 0.003 0.67 1 A 0.004 The results show no difference in LOS without and with project conditions for the eight intersections. The intersections will continue to operate with an acceptable level of service, with no deterioration in the operating Level of Service. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 16 - i�1 1901 Westcllff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report l.wconnnt /aae�a,ro. zwcm nlre//rumms a. wc�rmw/oowrdrew+hued 4. Wco /ecramd 73(1344) '—°o.m L27(30) 4--W72534) 2231(3631] r401321 J I L,. 'r 56(741 g 7 z2102(i30l� I t 3053121 1—► N :RQ1 38(23) m .o Zkms 435(487) . M1� SM»M'e /Omer dl19m9t AMre Me /wernmd /IJT 51 l.N�dM'a&W /d B.Orne�d /COS4�sln /��9r3� Y. a ro 3 0 M 11.7wM1 117m91 � a ,9 N TTOS E �. PROJECT ...... SrP6 LEGEND: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY INTERSECTION CITY OF COSTA MESA Dr STUDY INTERSECTION M(XX) AM(PM) PEAK HOUR lest Coast a VOLUMES NEWPORT BEACH "°°".Wy FIGURE 10 1901 WESTCLIFF DRIVE Existing plus Approved Projects plus Cumulative Projects TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. 17 �`� 1901 Westcl ff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report I.WCO Y /W'im90e 2. WCa MwlMM 1 WCOVE z2— IMyfGf9cyJw 4. WC WWlBCN M 'Op ^n '- 27(30) ^I 1- 2292135361 zq� 25�, � ��' /O3j Y x401321 J 4x16(74) n9ya /'�? f/jy�/?gy./ ?a7i /io le°r't,,'ap +� ♦ rf �h } r► t3�� "Yai2 l09(1371� III 72177)_} 111 / A 6� 2461(20b01 n $ . 65(2676) --► p a 38123] 30 43514 rv� m m m o 5.6rime AVe /Cava 0.I1MFN d. ifieAVefWeeklfl U /lm Sf >. Lbvn pAMe,icFlR B. Dauer GfCo,brvp N /IMF St v. v m 3 0 11.TwN flms e N TOSCAIE TWJECT SITE LEGEND- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STUDY INTERSECTION . CITY OF COSTA MESA STUDY INTERSECTION XX(XX) AM(PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUMES V \ Aleya, A!o/ OKvAssac4la,, Ina #Ma Cay NEWPORT BEACH An FIGURE 11 IN01 WESTCLIFFDRIVE Existing plus Approved Projects plus Cumulative Projects TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. c} 18 41 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center TPO Traffic Analysis Report 4.0 PARKING AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS 4.1 Parking Supply and Analysis Parking requirements are determined based on City zoning ordinances, although variations may be granted depending upon the particular project proposal. The City Code is intended to represent peak demand for parking at that particular use. Section 20.66.030 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance requires one space. per 250 square.feet.of medical office, or;generaLoffice.. , :. Application of this requirement to the proposed 29,999 square feet of total (existing and proposed) medical and general office results in a requirement of 120 parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows 121 parking spaces (one parking row indicates 9 spaces where ten are drawn) and hence meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance also requires the provision of I handicap parking space for every 25 regular spaces. The proposed plan shows 6 handicap parking spaces, which fulfills the requirements by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed parking site has parking spaces all along the building and a 26 to 30 feet wide alley all along the parking provides easy access to these parking spaces. All double loaded aisles are a minimum of 26 feet wide, and the single loaded aisle is approximately 20 feet wide. All parking spaces are provided at 90- degree angle. Parking spaces are shown as 8' -6" x 17' -0" for standard spaces, and 9' -0" x 18'-0" for handicap /van accessible spaces. Although the notes indicate all spaces shall be 8' -6" minimum, eighteen spaces as drawn on the plan are only eight feet wide. Also, in the 10 space row that runs north -south between buildings 1 and 3, Parking Standards require that the width of the end spaces next to walls or similar obstructions shall be 9'-0 ". It does not appear that the two spaces meet this width requirement. Parking spaces are shown adjacent to the property boundaries on the northeast, northwest and southwest comers of the property. City standards show that there should be a 4 foot minimum setback to allow access. However, the adjacent properties have contiguous and continuous parking, and the setback should not be required in this situation. Other than the 4 foot minimum setback and other comments mentioned in this section, the parking space dimensions and aisle widths meet City Standard STD - 805 -L -A and STD- 805 -L -B. 4.2 On -Site Circulation Analysis Access to the project site currently is provided from Westcliff Drive / 17s' Street with a two lane entry /exit driveway with full access to Westcliff Drive / 17ie Street. Traffic on northbound Westcliff Drive has a dedicated left turn lane for site access. The site plan of provides a secondary vehicle entrance from Sherington Place to the site. Currently, access from Sherington Place is from a shared driveway on the southeastern boundary of the project site. The proposed site plan adds and additional entrance /exit onto Sherington Place with full access. 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the City of Newport Beach and City of Costa Mesa `significant impact criteria' for signalized intersections, the project does not exceed the critical threshold of deterioration from LOS D to E, or an increase of 0.01 or more of the ICU at any LOS E baseline intersection. Therefore the project will not create any significant adverse operating conditions at the eleven study intersections and no mitigation measures are required. Meyer Mohaddes Associates Inc. 19 EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS APPROVED PROJECTS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS ONE- PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT LEVEL Oj' SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS �i EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS 5,1 CH5440AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSIDE DRIVE 5440 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes 1 Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I i I I I I 0.0303 1 1 Volume I I I I-- -- j NL — — - — — - -- - - 1 I 375 - — I -- - -- 11 1 — - -- - 2 ------------ -- - • --- 1 I 1 NT 4800 I I 7 0.088 0 1 0.091 ( 0.091 1 I NR I I 39 I 1 1 1 I I -- - - ---- I SL - - I 1600 - ----- - - --- -- - -- -- -- - --- - -- 1 1 30 I 0.019 ' _ 1 1 - - -- 44 1— 0.047 1 ~• - -- - -- -0.047 1 I-- - — I ST - — ---- ------ - --- -- ---- -- -- 1 1 4 — - I - 0 1 I I I I ---- - ----- } 1600 - --------- ---- -- - - -- } 0.016 - -- – – – – — ° — } 0.028 - — -- — } 0.0281 I SR 1 1 22 1 1 1 18 I 1 I--- -- --•- - - ---- 1 EL - ------ - ------ 1 1600 - — ----- - ------ - ---- -- - - - -- - ----- 1 1 36 1 -- - --- - 0.023 1 - ----- --- -- ------ 1 1 — - -- 35 1 — - — 0.0451 1 - — - I 0.0451 --- -- ---•-- 1 ET - --- ------ 1 4800 - - ---- ------- -- - _–__ 1 1 2669 1 0.556 - 81 1 63 1 0.586 1 2 1 0.5861 I- -- -- - - -- — 1 ER - -- - 1 1600 -- - - 1 1 420 1 0.263 I 131 2 1 0.2721 1 I 0.2721 I- -- - - - - -- 1 W L - ----- 1 16M - — -- - - - -- 1 { 49 1 -- 0.031 - -- ---- - -- 1 1 — -- --- 6 1 - - - - -- - -- 0.0351 1 -- I 0.0351 I--- --- - -- --- I WT - -- -- ------ -- — — 1 i 1613 - - I -- - -- 491 - - -- — 61 - -- -- -- — - ( 7 -- --- -- -- 1 I •'-- --- ---- } 6400 - -- - -- -- _ - -- ---- --- } 0.256 - --- --------- -- ' - ----- ------ } 0.273 -- ---- -- } 0.2741 I WR I- - — -- - I I 26 - - - - - --- - ----- - - ----- - - -- 1 — - 1 1 - -- — ' — —_ - I — - - -- - -- I -- - - l EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.694 1 1 I ---------- - ---- - -------- - - --- -- -- - -- - -- - - I - ----- - ----- - ---- - - - - -- - -- --- - - -- -- - I EXISTING+ REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WIPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.759 I I --- ------- -- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.760 1 Split Phase NIS Direction XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I-I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L4 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project --- ---- ---- - ----- -- ------- ------- -- ---------- - ------ – — '---- -- -- •---- ----- ---------- - - -- -- -- – --- -.–_ -- -. Description of system improvement: --- -------------- ----------- ---- -- - -- --- --- '---- --- - - -- – - ------ - -- -- -•------- -- --- ---- -- ----- - - - - -" _ - -- - -- _. --- --- -- -- -•-- PROJECT FORM Ii CH5440AM 53 CH5440PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSIDE DRIVE 5440 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC. _ - -----' -- - --- -- --" - 2003 PM - --- --- - - -'-- -- -- - -- - - -- -- - - - ---- -- - — -- - --- - ------- --- - - -- - - -- — -- ---- --'• --- 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement 1 Lanes I Lanes 1 PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume 1 VIC I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume 1 Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio 1 I I I I I 0.0303 I I Volume I I — — — — -- — I I — — — - — - - --- - - -- -- - --- -- - - -- - - ---- -- -- - - -- - — ----- — — — — -- — — 1 NL I i 477 I 14I 4 -- I I I- -- } -- — – — } -- --- -- - ---- - --- I NT 4800 I I 6 0.108 ' 0 1 0.112 1 0.1121 1 NR 1 1 33 1 11 1 — -- ---- - - --- ---- - -- 1 — -- I I— — — — -- ---- -- - - - - -- -- — — — -- — -- — I SL 1 1600 1 1 27 1 0.017 1 1 1 71 I - - -- -- - - ------ -- - -- -- - — 0.0621 l -- ---- ---- - --- -- 0.0621 -- -- I I- --- - - -- - -- --- - - - - -- - --- - - - - --- - --------- ---- - -- -- -- -- - --- - -- ---- - I ST 1 1 9 1 01 1 I 1600 - ---------- - -- --- - ----- - - ---- } 0.029 ` -- - - - - -- - ---- ----------- } 0.048 - ------ - ----- } 0.0481 I SR 1 1 37 1 1 1 29 1 ------- - - -- - -- --- - 1 — -- I I— -- -- ------ - --- - - - --- - ------- - - - ---- - --- - - --- - -------- - -- - -- - -------- -- - 1 EL I 1600 1 1 50 1 0.031 2 1 26 1 ----- - 0.048 1 1 0.0481 ET I 4800 1 I 2115 1 0.441 I 641 60 I 0.4661 11 I -- — -- 0.4691 - -- I I— — — - -- - ---- — ------- — -- -- - ----- - - - - -- - — ----- — - -- -------------- - 1 ER I 1600 1 1 473 1 0.296 I 14 1 I - - - --- 0.3051 1 - -- -- 0.3051 — –' I – – – -- 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 67 I 0.042 I 2 1 5 1 -- 0.0461 I 0.0461 I AT 1 I 3076 I 931 65 1 5 1 I -- -- -- } 6,400 - -- ----- ------- - -- ---- } 0.485 - - ------ -- - -- - --------- ------ } 0.510 - ---- - -- } 0.511 1 WR 1 1 29 1 1 1 ------- -- - - -- - - - - - - -- -- 1 — -- - - - --- - ---- - - - - - -- - 1 ------- ---- - -- I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.653 1 -- — — — I — — — — — --- -- - ---- ----- — - ----- - --- -- - --- - - -- — EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I - -- - 0.718 I -- - - - -- — - -° — — — I - ------- ----- --- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ------ -- I 0.719 1 — -- --- ---- - ---' ----- - -- -- ---- --- - - Split Phase N/S Direction IXl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 �J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wlsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 El Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project — Description of system improvement: -- --- -----' - -- -- - - -- -- ------ '----- ---- – -------- -- -- -- - -------- -- -- -----'---- - ---- -- °-- -- --- -'- ----- --_- -- -- ------- ---- PROJECT FORM II CH544OPM 5 L� CH3060AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVEBAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM { I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED { PROJECTED { PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio { Volume I V/C I I { Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I 0.0303 { { Volume I I { NIL I 1600 I I 31 1 0.019 1 1 1 1 0.0201 1 0.0201 I NT 1 I 59 1 2 1 1 1 I - ---- ---- -- } 3200 - - --- - --- - ---- --- - -- } 0.034 - -------- -- - ----- ^ - -- } 0.035 - - -- - -- -) 0.0351 { NR { 1 49 I---- - -- --- SL - ---- -- - - ---- - 1 4800 1 ------- - ---- -- - ------- ------ 1 1095 - - -- 1 0.228 33 1 3 1 0.236 1 2 1 I 0.2361 { ST ---- 1 1600 1 1 60 1 0.038 1 2 1 I 0.039 1 1 0.0391 I-- - - -- -- { SR - -- ----------- - 1 1600 1 -- -------- ' - - -- - - -- 1 98 - - ----- - - - - -- - 1 0.061 1 --- •- --- - - -- -- - 3 1 ----------------- - - 14 1 - --- -- - - 0.0721 - - -- - 1 1 - — -- 0.0721 I— -- — 1 EL - -- -------- - 1 3200 1 -------- --- --- - -- - I 85 -- - 1 0.027 I -- - - - ---- - 3 1 ----- - - -- -- - 14 1 - -- - -- - __ 0.0321 - - - 5 1 - -- - I 0.0331 1 ET 1 1 2135 1 65 1 97 I I - - - -- } 4800 - --------- - ---- - -- - - - - --- } 0.453 ' — — -- -- -- - } 0.486 - — - -- } 0.4861 I ER 1 1 37 I 1 1 1 1 I— — - 1 WL - - — I 1600 1 — — - -- -- — 1 39 - — -- 1 0.024 ' - -- -- - 1 1 - -------- - -= 1 — -- — 0.025 1 - -- 1 —_ -- I 0.0251 { -- —' WT -- - -- 1 4800 1 - - ------ - -- ------ ----- 1 1329 -- 1 0.277 I — - '- 40 1 - — -- -' 78 1 -- - — - 0.3021 —_— 1 - - -__— I 0.3021 1 WR I N.S. 1 1 650 1 1 20 { 3 1 I- ---- --- -- - ------------- - -- - -- — ----- - --- - - ---- - ---- -- - --- -•--- - --- -- - ----- •---•- -- - -- EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.7391 I---- -- - ---•- - - -- - -- -- -- — -- — - -- — - I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. - { I- -- - -- - - - - - - ---- ------ - ------ ------ - ------------ -- - ----- --------- - - - ---- { EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. --- - - - — - - --- - - - -- -- - --- ---- - -- - -- - -- --- - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - --- --- - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -- Split phase N/S direction IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.0 -U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 1 71 0.782 1 --- --•'----- - - -- - - ----'---- - -- - ------------- - --- -- -------------- -- - ----- - - - --- -- -------------------- - ------- - -- -- --------- - --- - - - -- Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH3060AM FORM II AL CH3060PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC -------- - -- - - --- - -- - 2003 PM -- --- . — - I _' - - -- - -- I EXISTING - --- ---- -- - - ---- - =- ` -'_ - - --- I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING - - ------- - - --' -- ------ --- --• --- - I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement 1 Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT 1 VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC 1 I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I' I Ratio I i I I I 1 I 0.0303 1 I Volume I I I I NL 1 1600 I I 24 1 0.015 I 1 1 1 0.0151 1 0.0151 i NT I I 43 1 t 1 I 1 I - -- } 3200 -- -- -- ) 0.023 - - ---- - ----- - ----- -- ------- } 0.024 - — - } 0.0241 NR 1 1 32 1 1 1 1 -- -- -- -- ------ I— -- SL - - ---- 1 4800 - ----- --- --- - - -- --- ---- -- - --- 1 1 987 1 ---------- 0.206 - --------- - - ---- - --------- " 30 1 - -- - --- - 3 1 -- -- 0.212 1 11 1 — – '— – 0.2151 - -" -- 1. - -- ST ' -- — I 1600 -- —•-- ---- - -- 1 1 66 1 •- --- - - - - -- 0.041 - — — 1 2 1 - - - -' 1 – – 0.042 1 1 -- - - - - -- - -- --- - - -- -- - 0.042 •-- - -- I- -- 1 SR — — ( 1600 -- - -- - -- - -- --- -- - - -- - I 1 134 1 - - - - -- 0.084 - -- ------- - - - --- - -------- 1 4 1 --- - ----- - 10 1 -- ----- 0.093 1 6 1 - — — — --- - -- - 0.096 ------ -- -- -- 1 — - I EL — 1 3200 — - - - - - -- 1 1 113 1 - - - 0.035 — - - ' 3 1 - - - 14 1 - -- — 0.041 1 3 1 - - — - -- -- -- - 0.042 - - ----- — I-- 1 ET — - -- - -_ __ -- - 1 1 1636 -- 1 50 1 83 1 I -- - -- } 4800 - - - -- - -- --- --- } 0.345 - - ------ --- - ----- - - -- -- } 0.373 - ---- - ----- } 0.373 I ER I 1 22 1 1 1 1 — - - -- — - I - — I WL — -- 1 1600 -- - -- - - - - --- - 1 1 31 1 - ----- - - - - -- 0.019 - ----- - 1 1 1 -- - - I — ------- 0.0201 I — - — -- — - 0.020 — -- I- - -- 1 WT - — - 1 4800 — — — - -- ------ - 1 1 2368 1 - --------- — 0.493 - ----- - - - - --- ' 72 1 - ---- 94 1 - -- - 0.528 1 1 ---- •- ----- - -' - -5 0.528 - - -- - -- WR 1 N.S. 1 1 1300 1 - -- -- - - ------ -- --- - 1 39 1 -- -- ---- -- ---- 5 1 I ; 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.757 1 I— - -- - — - — — -- - - -- -- — - - ------ - •------- - - ---- - I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.805 — —' — -- - - -- - ------ -- -- - -- -- - - -- - -- -•-- - - -- -- -- ------------ --- - -- - - -- — '- - 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -- --- - - -- - -- - --•-- - --- Split Phase MIS direction 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 El Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: --- - -- ---- - ---- - - --- -- - - -- -- ---- - -- - ---•---- --- -- - -- ----------- - ---------------- -- --- _'- --- - - ---. _.._--- ------- -- -- -- -------- - ----------- PROJECT FORM II CH3060PM E CH2630AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement i Lanes 1 Lanes 1 PK HR I V/C 1 GROWTH 1 PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1 Volume I V/C I I I Capacity 1 Capacity 1 Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I 0.0303 I I Volume I-- I NL — - -- — — — I I -- — -- — -- 2 I — - -- --- --- - 0 1 - - - -- -- -- -- -- — — — — I — - -- I I I- ---- -- - - -- } - - - -- - - -- --- -- - --- -- -- - -- } - - - ------- -- NT 1600 1 1 1 0.003 1 0 1 0.0031 0.0031 I------ - - ----- } - - -- - - - - -- - — ---------- - -- } - --- --- -- - - -- - --- -------- - - --- I NR 1 1 2 I 0 1 I I I----- - - - --- I SL - ---- - - - - -- - ---- -- - - - -- - 1 1 - -- - - - -- - - --- 79 — — -- 2 1 --- — — — -- I I I I ---- - ----- } 1600 - -- --------- - ----- ---- - - -- } 0.053 - ----- --------- - ------ ------- -- } 0.055 - --- - -- -- } a0551 I ST I 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 I l--- -- •-- -- - -- I SR - — ---- -- - --------- - ----- - 1 1600 1 1 ----- - - - - -- - -- -- - - -- - 270 1 0.169 1 _ — - 8 I — -- - - -- - I -- -- — 0.1741 1 -- — 0.1741 I----- - - ---- I EL - ----- --- - - -- - -------------- - I 1600 I 1 - --- - - -- -- - --- --- --- - -- - ------------- 294 1 0.184 1 - 9I --------------- I — — — - - -° 0.1891 1 - - - -- I 0.1891 I- - - -- I ET — - -- — - - -- - 1 1 - -- - -- — — — — 2066 I — — — 63 1 - - - -- 81 — -- 1 5 — -- — I 1 3200 -- - — --- — } 0.647 * _— — — — - -- - -- } 0.692 - -- - -- } 0.6931 I ER 1 I 4 I 0 1 1 { W L 1 1600 I 1 It 1 0.007 0 I 1 0.007 1 1 0.0071 I---- ------ WT - -- --- - ----- - ---- - - - ---- - 1 4800 1 1 ------ - - - - -- - ---- -- --- -- - -- 1279 1 0.266 I --------- -- - 391 ----------- — 74 I — - -- - -- — 0.290 I 1 1 - -- 0.2901 I-- — I W R — — — -- --- - --- - 1 1600 1 1 ---- -- - - -- -- — 55 1 0.034 I -- -- 2 I - -- — I - -- - -- 0.035 I 1 -- -- I 0.0351 I- ---- - -- - -- EXISTING - --------- - --- - ----- ---- --- - I.C.U. ---------- - -- --- --- - -- - --- 1 0.060 I --- - - - - -- - - --- --- ---- - - - - -- - ---- -- - -- -- - -- — -- I 1 I - -- --- - ------ I EXISTING + - - - ----- ---- -- — — — -- — — — -- -- REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ---- -- - - - - -- - 1 - - - -- - 0.062 I I I I---- - - - --- - ------- - - ---- - - - - -- I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH -- — -- + PROJECT I.C.U. — — — -- — — — -- -- — I - - -- I 0.062 1 I XI Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project — -- ------ - -- - - ----- - - ---- - ---- --- - -- ---' - --- '------- - - ---------- - -- ------ ' ------ ' ----- -- ------- -- - Description of system improvement: -- -- ------- - - - -- - -------- - -- - ---- --- ---- -- -- - ------ -------- - ----------- - - -------- - - ---- - --- --- - - - - -- PROJECT CH2630AM FORM II �1 CH2630PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC - - -- --•--- - ------'----- - 2003 PM - - - - -- - --- - - - ---- ' I I -- --- - EXISTING I ---- - --- - ------ --- -- ------ - PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I - - - - - COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 1 V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I ( I Capacity 1 Capacity I Volume I Ratio 1 Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I 0.0303 1 1 - Volume I --- ---- - - -••– - -- ---- ------ - I - -- I – — – I NL - - -- I -- °— — -- -- -- 1 12 --- --- - -- --- ---- 1 -- -- 0 1 ------ - -- --- 1 I NT 1600 1 1 13 0.023 ' 0 1 0.024 1 0.0241 I NR I I 12 I 0 1 I 1 SL I 1 110 1 3 1 I I 0.0741 I } 1600 — } 0.072 ' - — -- - } 0.074 - - - ) ST I I 5 1 01 1 -- --- - -- ---•-- - --- -- - 1 - -- - - - - -- I I— — SR 1 — -- — 1600 I — — -- -- - - -- - ------- ( 269 1 - -- - ------------- 0.168 1 - 8 1 -- ------ - - - --- - 1 -- ------ -- -- 0.173 1 1 0.1731 1 EL I 1600 1 1 246 1 0.154 ' 7 1 1 - 0.158 1 1 0.1581 - I ET - ---- -- - 1 — - --- - -- - - -- - -- - - 1 1511 - - - - - -- - 1 46 1 102 1 3 1 I - ----- -- } 3200 - -- -- -- - ----- } 0.478 - --- -- ----- - - ------ - - - -- } 0.524 - --- --------- } 0-5251 1 ER ( 1 19 I 1 1 1 - -- - 1 -------- --- I — -- 1 W L 1 — — 1600 ( -- - -- — — 1 44 1 - -- — - -- 0.028 1 1 1 — - -- — 1 -- 0.028 1 1 — -- — 0.0281 — — -- I i— — — — 1 WT 1 -- — 4800 - -- — - - - ------ — 1 1 2256 1 — — — — ------ 0.470 ' - 68 1 --- ----- --- - -- 87 1 — — 0.502 1 6 1 -- - --- -- --- - - -- - 0.5041 — — — I I-- — WR 1 — -- — 1600 -- — — -- 1 I 42 1 — — -- 0.026 1 — 1 1 -- — — 1 — --- -- ---• 0.027 1 1 0.0271 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.719 1 1 I— -- - - -- - -- — — — — — — °° -- - -- --- - - -- — — — — ----- -- - -- -- - I 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.759 1 I-- — - -- – -- -- – -- - --------- – – – – – - -- - -- ------ ---- - -- - - ----- --- -- - - -- -- - --- -- I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.760 1 -- -- ------ ' - ------ - ---- - ----- - - --- -- ---- - ---- - - ------- --- - -- "'Assumes SBR as critical since > SBL + EBL (concurrent w /SBR) I XI Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 j _I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I -1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- --- ------- --- -- -- ------ - -------- ------ -- --- --- --- -. Description of system improvement: -'-'--- -- -- ---- - ---- -- -- --- --------- ---- - -- -- --- ------ ---- -- --- -------•— -- --- ------- --- - -------- - - - - -- -- ------ - - ---- -- -- - - - ----` - PROJECT FORM II CH2630PM CH2635AM 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.701 1 1 I-- — - -••- - ---- — --- - ---- - -------- -- ---- - -------- -- I 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.747 I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.749 1 1XI Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II CH2635AM 6a INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C �P R�7Fp INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 AN EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio ( Volume I Volume I w/o Project I . I Ratio I I I I I 1 I 0.0303 1 I Volume I NL I I 0 I 0 1 I I } - -- - - - -- NT 1600 I 1 0 0.000 1 01 0.0001 0.0001 I NR I 0 1 0 1 I I -- --•- - - - -- I SL — — — - -- — — — — — I I 39 1 -- -- 1 1 — — _ — — --- — —_ I — -- — I I I- -- } — — -- - - - -- }. . - -------- ----- - - -•• - - - --- 1 ST 1600 1 0 0.034 ' 0 1 0.035 1 0.0351 1 - --- --• --- } - -- — — - -- --- -- - - -- } — ----------- - - -- I SR -- --• I 1 15 I 0 1 I ---- I ------- I-•---- ------ I EL - - -- — 1 1600 - -•- - - ---- - -------- ----- — — " 1 1 44 1 0.028 { — — — 1 1 — —' — — 1 - ----------- - ------- - 0.0281 1 ------ I 0.0281 I— -- I ET - ---' -- — ' - - ------ - --•-- - - ---- 1 I 2132 1 65 83 1 5 I 1 I - ------ -- } 3200 - ---- --- -••--- - ----------- -- } 0.667 - ----- — — — -- – } 0.713 - — --- ------ } 0.7141 i ER I — — -- — i { 1 { 01 — I — -- — — - — - - 1 ------- -- -- -- I I W'L I - --- — -- — — I i 0 1 1 — — — 0 1 — — I I 1 ° I I— — 1 WT — -- 1 4800 — — - • - - - - - - -- — -- — 1 1 1307 I 0.272 1 - ---- — 40 1 — — -- -- - 66 1 --• — — — -- 0.2941 1 1 — - -- — I 0.2951 — - -- I WR 1 1600 -- - ----- - -------- - -- " — -- 1 1 42 1 0.026 1 --'— — - 1 1 — —'--- - 1 --' '— — - — — - 0.0271 1 — — — I 0.0271 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.701 1 1 I-- — - -••- - ---- — --- - ---- - -------- -- ---- - -------- -- I 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.747 I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.749 1 1XI Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 0 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II CH2635AM 6a CH2635PM EXISTING I.C.U. - - -_— _ - _-- - - - - -- - —�– � -- 0.597 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.632 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0-634 I IX1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT FORM 11 CH2635PM /i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS cq<f�4• INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM –^ I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity 1 Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio 1 I I I I I I 0.0303 1 I Volume I I I I NL I I 0 1 01 I 1 I NT 1600 I 1 0 0.000 1 0 1 1 0.0001 0.0001 I NR I I 0 1 01 I 1 1 I --- 51-- -- - - - - - -- I i- -- - - -- 1 55 I 2 1 I I I ST 1600 I 1 0 0,046 0 0.048 1 0.048 I'— -- } — ___ - --- } — -- _--- -- - - -- - ------ ------} 1 SR I i 19 1 1 1 I 1 I EL 1 1600 I 1 104 1 0.065 3 1 1 0.0671 1 0.0671 ET 1 1 1513 1 46 1 90 1 1 3 1 3200 — — . - - -- – } 0.474 - --• -- -- - — -- 0.517 - - -- --- } 0.5171 1 ER I I 4 1 01 1 1 1 I - -WL — i- - -- - -- 1 i- - - - - -- � - - -•o I — I o f I I I — - -- I — — I 1 WT 1 4800 I 1— 2332 1- ' 71 1 83 1 0.518 1 6 1 - - -- — - 0.5191 — - -- I I — — — — — — 1 W R 1 1600 -0.486 — - -- -- - - - -- - 1 1 59 1 0.037 1 2 1 1 — — -- 0.038 1 1 0-0381 EXISTING I.C.U. - - -_— _ - _-- - - - - -- - —�– � -- 0.597 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.632 1 I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0-634 I IX1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 IJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT FORM 11 CH2635PM /i D03260AM I EXISTING I.C.U. i 0.439 1 1 1 — — — — —' — ' — — —' —''— — -- -- — — — - ---- — --- -- - -------- - -` --- - i EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.453 I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.456 1 {XI Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 —I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT D0326DAM FORM II I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c '1Ct P INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE 816th ST/ CASTAWAYS LANE 3260 FO µNQ EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume .I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I 0.0303 I I Volume I I I NL 1 16001 1 651 0.041 2 1 1 1 0.042 1 3 1 0.044 1 - - -- I I- - -- — 1 NT — — 1 — — — — — — — 1 584 — — — — 18 I - ---- -- - - -- - 1 - --- -- -- — — 1 — 9 - I I - - -- } 3200 - ---- ------- - --- -'– } 0.195 - ----- ---- -- - ------ – ----- — } 0.202 - - - - -- -- } 0.204 1 1 NR 1 I 40 1 1 1 1 ) 1 SL 1 1600 1 I 18 I 0.011 1 1 1 1 j 0.012 I I 0.012 1 j ST 1 1 945 I 291 1 2 I I ------- } 3200 - -- — — ' – -- 3 0.301 ' - -- – " – - -- – " ' } 0.310 - - -- ----- } 0.311 1 I SR I i 19 I 1 1 1 I I- -- I EL — — I - -- — --- - - - - -- - ---- I 19 --- - - - --- - { ------- - --- - -- - 1 1 ---- -- ----- -- - -- -- --- - - - - -- - { --- --- --- - -- - ---- - - --- -- I I ET 1600 I I 9 0.097 0 1 0.100 1 0.101 { I ER I I 127 1 4 1 1 1 1 I I-- -- — W L 1 — ' —' 1600 I — - - -- ' -- —' I 33 1 - - ----- - 0.021 1 ------ -- ---- 1 1 '— -- - - -- - 1 1 - --- -- -- 0.022 1 1 0.022 1 WT 1 16001 I 31 0.002 1 0 1 2 1 0.003 1 I 0.003 1 WR 1 I— - -' 16001 -- — I 561 —' -- — - -'—' 0.035 1 — -- 21 -- ---- - 41 ----- -- 0.039 I I 0.039 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. i 0.439 1 1 1 — — — — —' — ' — — —' —''— — -- -- — — — - ---- — --- -- - -------- - -` --- - i EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.453 I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.456 1 {XI Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 —I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT D0326DAM FORM II I DO3260PM I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.548 1 I 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.569 1 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.573 I IX1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Cl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project --- •--- ---•-- - --- --- -- ---- - --- -- - ----- - - --- • -- -- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II DO3260PM W- INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS �cr �A INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & 16th ST/ CASTAWAYS LANE 3260 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I –- 1 EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes 1 PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C 1 Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume i w/o Project 1 I Ratio I I I I I ! 0.0303 I I Volume I I I 1 NL 1 16001 1 141 1 0.088 1 41 I 0.091 — _ — I 21 — — 0.092 I - --- I I- -- 1 NT ----- - - -•-- -- -- -- — — — -- ' -- — 1 I 1152 1 35 I — — I 6 I I --- ------- — } 3200 - ---- - - ---- - --- -__–__ } 0.367 ' -- - -- - - -- ---- } 0.379 - ---- ------ } 0.381 1 NR 1 I 23 1 1 I 2 I 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 59 1 0.037 ' 2 1 4 1 - 0.040 --- -- I I ''— ' --- 0.040 1 _ — I I-- — ST — — - --- --- - ------ ------- - ------ ---- — —' - -' - --- - j I 872 1 261 -- 1 0.292 I 13 - . —_ - --. } I 0.296 I I - -- ---' } 3200 - ------ - --- - ' —' ---- } 0.283 ' - - ---'— - -•-- '--- -' } SR I I 33 I 1 1 - -- -- - -- — — ~ -- I — — I — — I I-- — EL — - - -- — —•--- - -- - --- — -- -- I 1 25 I 1 1 I I 1 ET 1600 1 1 18 0.144 1 1 1 0.149 1 0.162 1 ER 1 1 188 1 6 1 __ -- 1 4 - - --- - I -- — I 1 WL - -- 1 16001 I 37I 0.023 1 1 1 — — I 0.024 1 1 0.024 I WT 1 1600 1 I 9 1 0.006 1 0 1 1 1 0.006 1 I 0.006 1 I WR 1 16001 I 531 0.033 1 2 1 4 1 0.037 1 I 0.037 I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.548 1 I 1 EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.569 1 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.573 I IX1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Cl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project --- •--- ---•-- - --- --- -- ---- - --- -- - ----- - - --- • -- -- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II DO3260PM W- D0329CAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & W ESTCLIFF DRIVE 3290 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes . I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity i Capacity { Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I 1 0.0303 1 I Volume 1 I— -- — { NIL -- -- { 3200 j — -- — — ° — — -- - { 353 ( 0.110 -- ---- - - - - -- - 11 I -- --- ------ - - - ---- - - - -- — 1 { 0.114 (--- • - -_ -9 1 — 0.117 I NT I- -- -- I 32001 I 3881 0.121 I 121 41 0.126 I I -- - -- --- - -- - -- - 0.126 ---- -- — I NR — _— I I — -- — — -- — I I I — ---- - 01 - ---- --- ---- - ---- - - - - - I I I I SL 1 — — — I I — — — I I I -- 01 I I I - --- - - - -- - -- --- - - -• --- - --- - ----- ST =— I 1600 I -- — — — — — — 1 451 I 0.282 — -- 14 I - -- ---- -- - - - - --- --- - 1 1 0.291 I 1 0.291 I— SR -- -- 1 16001 — —' — — — - -- -- ( 30 1 0.019 j — -- 1 1 -- ---- - -- - -- - -- -- - -- — -- 1 0.019 1 I — _— 0.019 I- -- - - - - -- 1 EL - - - -- -- 1 3200 1 — — — — — -- -•-- - 1 85 I 0.027 ' — 3 1 1 0.027 j 1 0.027 I ET I- -- I I — — — I I I — -- 01 I I I — -- - -- — — - -- -- ( ER ( N.S. ( — - -- - — -- ( 461 1 I ---- ------ - 14 I -- — — - -- -- l I 2 1 I WIL — I I I f { 01 I I { - -- --- -- -- 1 — -- I WT I_ —_ — — — I i - -- — — — — - -- — — — i { I — - — — -- 01 __— — — - - -- -- - ---------- - I 1 1 - ---- - - - -- - --- - - -- -- - -- -- - - -- I WIR I i -- -- - -- - -- I I I — - -- 0 — -- -- - --- - 1 1 1 1 EXISTING I.C.U, j 0.419 I 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.432 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I jXl Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 jJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- ------------ - -- ------ - ----- — '--- -- - - ^--- -- -- - --- ' --'- -- - – •------ --- ---- - --- -------•--- - Description of system improvement: PROJECT D03290AM 1 0.435 FORM II 0 D0329OPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE& WESTCLIFF DRIVE 3290 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio 1 I I I I 1 I 0.0303 I I Volume I I I — — — — I I-- -- — — — — — — - -- - ----- - - - - -- — — — — -- NL 1 3200 I 1 1001 1 0.313 ' 30' I 1 -- 0.322 I -- - -- 6 1 0.324 I — — — -- — I I-- - - -- - --- - -- - - ------- - - -- -- - --- -- - -- --- - ----- -- -- - - -- - - - - -- — — — -- NT 1 32001 1 2001 0.063 1 61 21 -- 0.065 1 —__— -- I 0.065 I - -- I I— — — ----- — - ----- -- - - -- - —' - -- o NR I 1 1 1 1 I 1 - - -- - - ------- ------ I — -- I -- -- — — -- -- -- SL I I I I I 01 1 I I ST 1 1600 1 1 385 1 0.241 12 1 2 1 0.249 1 -- 1 0.249 1 — -- — — — I I-- --- - - -- -- - --- - -- - -- - ----------- - ---- - -- ------- - - -------- --- - — — -- - SR 1 1600 1 1 1071 0.067 I 3 1 1 - 0.069 1 — — -- - 1 0.069 1 — — I f--- -- -- -- — -- - - ---- — - -- -- - -- - -- - -- — — -- - -- - EL I 3200 1 1 176 1 0.055 5 1 1 -- - ---- ----- -- - 0.057 -- - 1 1 0.057 I - -'- --- - - --'- --- I - ---- I ET I I I I f 0f 1 ER I N.S.1 1 6511 1 201 3 1 - - -- - -- ------ ----- - •— 1 131 I - -- - - -- - - -_..— I ------ - -- ---- --- - --- WL I 1 I I 1 01 I - - -- -- - - --- - - -- I ! - -- - --- -- - ---- -- - - - --- - -- - - - - -- - ---- -- -- -- I WT I I I I I 0 1 I I 1 1 WR 1 I I I 1 01 I - — — ----' - ' -- ---- --- - ! 1 -- --'--- - — ----- - -- -._ ---- - --- — ----------- 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.609 1 --- -- ------ - -• -- 1 -- ---- - - - --- - ---- -- -- ---- - - ---- --- - - - - -- - -- — — - -- — — — — — -- 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.628 — — I I -- I I--- -- - - - - -- - --- — — — — - -- — — - -- — — -- — -- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I -- I I 0.630 I IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: -- - ---- - - - - -- ` - - - -- - --- -- --'-- -- - ------- - -- - - -- - ----- - --- -- -- --------- -- -- - --- ------- -- PROJECT FORM II D03290PM 0 IR3275AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE/17TH STREET 3275 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I — I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT.{ PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I lanes { PK HR { VIC { GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume. I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio ' I I I I I I 1 0.0303 I I Volume I I 1 I NL 1 32001 I 2421 0.076 1 71 1 1 0.078 I I 0.078 1 I NT i 1 699 I 21 I 1 1 • - - ---- } 3200 - - - - - -- - - - -- } 0.231 ` -- -- - - -- - ----- --•' -- } 0.238 —_ } 0.238 { I NR I I 39 I 1 1 I l I SL 1 3200 I 1 2001 0.063 ` 61 1 0.064 1 6 1 0.066 1 I ST I 1 498 I 15 I I 3 1 1 ------------ } 3200 — —'— —'— — } 0.195 — -- _ — - -- – ' } 0.201 — '– — } 0.202 I I SR I 1 126 I 41 I I EL I 32001 I 3121 0.098 1 91 I 0.100 I 1 0.100 I I ET 1 1 544 I 161 { 7 I I } 3200 - - - - - - -- - - -- } 0.230 ' - - - - -- - -- - - -- } 0.238 - —•-- -- } 0.240 1 I– ER I 1 193 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 I WL I 16001 1 441 0.028 1 1 I 0.028 I I 0.028 1 1 - -- -- -- - -- - -- --- - I WT 1 1 342 I - -•- - -- -- -- -- 10 1 - - - i -- –2 - - -- I - --- --) 3200 - - - ----_— . __.-- -_._ } 0.130 - --- ------ - ---- -- - -- } 0.134 } 0.135 I I WR I I 74 I 21 I 2 I { EXISTING I.C.U. i 0.552 { I 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.568 1 I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.573 1 IXl Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT IR3275AM FORM II 65 IR3275PM EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.792 1 I- - -- - - - - -- -- -- - - -- - ---- ------ • -- -•- -- -- -- - -- -- - - - - -- --- - 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.815 1 I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.824 I ]XI Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT - FORM II IR3275PM W� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 4ppa INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVENUE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE /17TH STREET 3275 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I - I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING 1 EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement 1 Lanes I Lanes 1 PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I VV/CC J I Capacity J Capacity J Volume I Ratio 1 Volume 1 Volume I w%oo Project 0.0303 I I I I I - - I NI. I 3200 J I 306 I 0.096 ' - --- -- 9 I I ---- - - -- 0.099 1 3 1 0.099 1 I NT 498 I 15 I I 4 1 3200 ' — --- ---- -- } 0.178 I --- " -- —' -- } 0.183 -- — } 0.184 1 NR 1 i 71 I 2 1 1 I J SL I 3200 1 I 170 1 0.053 1 5! _— _____ —__ I - -_— __0-055 1 -- -- 4 1 0.056 I _- - -I 1 ST I I 1 24 1 I z- } 0.376 I 1 ------'------ } -------795 3200 - -- -------- - } 0.365 _. ------ - – -'-- ----- } 0.376 - ---• 1 SR 1 I 372 I 11 1 - 1 - -- - - -- - 1 -- --• - -- I--- -- -- ---- - EL 1 --- - - - - -- - - -° - 3200 1 1 247 I 0.077 - •- ----- - --- -- - -- ------ - -- -- - 1 7 I_-- 0.080 1 I 0.080 I I ET 1 I 603 1 . -_ _ - - -_– 18 1 2 1 4 I I - -- ^ -- } 3200 - -- - - -- - ----- - - --- } 0.263 - - ---- - --- - - - - - --- } 0.271 - -- -- } 0.273 I ER 1 1 237 1 7 1 1 1 i 1 W L 1 1600 1 1 94 I 0.059 1 3 1 1 - 0.061 1 - - -- - -• 1 -- 0.061 1 -- -- I f-- --- -- -- - -- - 1 WT - --- --- - - - - - - - - 1 I 752 I - - - -- - -- - -- 23 I 11 I 3200 - -- ------ - -- - } 0.254 ----- ----' – ^- - ---'— } 0.262 - ^_ -- } 0268 I I WR 1 I 62 1 2 1 1 9 i -- -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - - --- - ----- - - - -- - -- - - -_- I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.792 1 I- - -- - - - - -- -- -- - - -- - ---- ------ • -- -•- -- -- -- - -- -- - - - - -- --- - 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.815 1 I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.824 I ]XI Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement PROJECT - FORM II IR3275PM W� IR3385AM I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.561 1 1 - ---- - --- - -- -'-- -- - ----- - --- — - ------ ---- - 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.578 I 1 I- -- ------ - ---- -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - -- -- ' - - - I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.579 1 1X1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- -- ---------- - •--- ---•-- - - --- - - -• -- ' - --"-- - -- - -- --^ - ---- --- - - -- - ---' - - --- - '-- --- ---- -- - Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II JR3385AM 0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS q�rFO RN INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVE & DOVER DR119TH ST 3385 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I y— I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR j V/C j GROWTH I PROJECT 1 VIC Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity 1 Capacity 1 Volume 1 Ratio j Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I 1 I I I { 0.0303 I I Volume I I I 1 - -- --- - I NL I -- - - -- - 1600 1 - - - - - -- - - -- I 43 1 0.027 i - -- - -- 1 1 - - - - - 1 j - -- - -- - 0.028 1 I - - -- I 0.028 1 1 NT 1 1 1069 I 321 1 1 3 I I °-- -- } 3200 - --- --'--- -- - -- -- -' } 0.345 * - --- ' - -- ._— } 0.355 • --- ----' } 0.356 I I NR 1 I 34 I 1 1 I I 1 SL I 1600 I I 158 1 0.099 ' 5 1 1 1 0.102 I I 0.102 1 I ST I { 795 1 241 I 9 { I - -- --- --- } 3200 - --------- ------ - ----- - -- } 0.254 - _ - -- --- - --- ------ } 0.262 - - - - °-- } 0.265 I I SR I I 19 I 1 1 I I I-- ---- - - ---- - 1 EL 1 - -- --- - -- 16001 - -- -- -- - °- - -- 1 81 I 0.051 I - -- - 21 - -_ - - I -- -- -- -- 0.052 I I -- - - I 0.052 I 1 ET I 1 146 I 4 1 I { -- - --- -- } 1600 - ---- --- - -- - - ---- } 0.107 - — } 0.110 - --- - - ---- } 0.110 I I ER 1 I 25 I 1 1 I I 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 16 1 0.010 ' 0 I 1 0.010 j I 0.010 I 1 WT 1 16001 i 101 1 0.063 1 3I 1 1 0.066 ( I 0.066 1 I- -- - W R 1 - - - 1600 I - - -- - - -- -- 1 239 { 0.149 1 - - - 7 1 --- 2 1 - - -- - -- - 0.155 I 1 -- -- - - - -- I 0.155 1 I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.561 1 1 - ---- - --- - -- -'-- -- - ----- - --- — - ------ ---- - 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.578 I 1 I- -- ------ - ---- -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - -- -- ' - - - I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.579 1 1X1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -- -- ---------- - •--- ---•-- - - --- - - -• -- ' - --"-- - -- - -- --^ - ---- --- - - -- - ---' - - --- - '-- --- ---- -- - Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II JR3385AM 0 IR3385PM IX1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Lj Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Wsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT – FORM II IR3385PM \LT� INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c '1C! FO RN INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVE & DOVER DR/19TH ST 3385 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I VIC Ratio I Volume I VIC I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w10 Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I 0.0303 1 1 Volume I I -- I -- I NL 1 16001 1 611 -- - 0.038 2 1 1 1 - ---- - -- - -- 0.040 1 I D.040 I — -- -- NT -- - -' - -- ' - -- - - 1 1 693 --- •--- - - ---- - -- ! I 13 0.234 I - - -_ } 1 0.238 1 1 --___�__.. } 3200 - -- •-- --- - -- - ---..._ } 0.227 -- ------?? -- _. ---- } NR 1- I 3 I 1 1 I — -- I - I SL ------ -- -- — I 1600 1 1 205 1 - -- — -- - - - --- 0.128 1 6 1 1 1 - - -- 0.133 I 1 --- - --- ------- - • —_- - °6 ' 0.133 1 '--'------- ST - - -- °------'-- - --'- ---'-- . I I 1188 _---____— - ------------ - ------ --------- 1- I 1 I--- 0.399 1 1 --- ---- --- } 3200 - ---- ----- --- - --- --- ----46 } 0.386 - - -_ -- -- 0.398 - -• - -- } 1 SR 1 1 1 1 1 I - — _ — — I - — - 1 I- - - EL — ----- ---- - - -- •---- ---•-- - ------- - -- - -- - 1 16001 1 531 - --- - ---- -- R -- -- - - - - -- — — — 0.033 2 1 1 - - -' —'— 0.034 1 1 — - - — -- —' 0.034 1 -- -- I ET --- - -- - -- - ----- — - 1 1 99 — — -- I 3 1 I 0.088 I -- -- ------ } 1600 - — — – - – — ' } _ 0.085 •-- – — ' - - -' — } 0.088 - - --•— } I 1 ER 1 1 37 I 1 j----- -- WL _ --- ------ - -- ----'---- ' -----'----- ' I 1600 I 1 44 I --- --'-- - --- ---•-- _ --- 0.028 1 1 1 0.028 0.028 I I WT J 1600 I 1 210 1 -'- --'--- -- 0.131 6 1 1 1 ------ 0.136 1 1 -- – ' — - — ----- -- 0.136 1 - -' 1 I -- — 1 W R ' -- ---- - ------- -------- - - ----- - -- - j 1600 1 1 240 1 --- ° — --' ' – - --- – 0.150 1 7 1 1 1. — -- --- - --- - - ---- — - 0.155 1 1 — -- — - - -- — 0.155 I — — I I— — 1 EXISTING I.C.U. — — — — - -- - --- ----- — 1 -- 0.588 1 -- — - -- --' 1 I I -- — EXISTING -- — - -- - - --- - ------ • ----------- - - -- -- '- -- + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.608 1 - - -' — -- '—I -- --- 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.609 I IX1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Lj Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Wsystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT – FORM II IR3385PM \LT� Existing Plus Background Growth Orange and 17th 2003 AM Movement Existing Lane Capacity Existing Peak Hr. Vol Exist V/C Regional Growth Vol Projected V/C Project Vol With Project V/C 0.0612 NL 1600 86 0.054 5 0.057 1 0.057 NT 1600 230 0.173 14 0.183 1 0.183 NR 46 3 SL 1600 124 0.078 8 0.082 0.082 ST 1600 142 0.133 9 0.094 0.094 SR 71 4 EL 1600 38 0.024 2 0.025 0.025 ET 3200 1018 0.318 62 0.338 9 0.340 ER 1600 98 0.061 6 0.065 0.065 W L 1600 40 0.025 2 0.027 0.027 WT 3200 665 0.238 41 0.221 2 0.221 W R 98 6 Exist ICU 0.593 Future w/o proi ICU 0.630. Future w/ prof ICU 0.632 Existing Plus Background Growth Orange and 17th 2003 PM Movement Existing Lane Capacity Existing Peak Hr. Vol Exist V/C Regional Growth Vol Projected V/C Pro" Vol Proj V/C 0.0612 NL 1600 143 0.089 9 0.095 1 0.095 NT 1600 239 0.193 15 0.204 1 0.204 NR 69 4 SL 1600 204 0.128 12 0.135 0.135 ST 1600 234 0.211 14 0.155 0.155 SR 103 6 EL 1600 84 0.053 5 0.056 0.056 ET 3200 850 0.266 52 0.282 5 0.283 ER 1600 138 0.086 8 W L 1600 81 0.051 5 0.054 0.054 WT 3200 933 0.356 57 0.309 14 0.314 W R 207 13 Exist ICU 0.729 Future w/o proj ICU 0.704 Future w/ pro' ICU M709 Existing Plus Background Growth Santa Ana and 17th Movement Existing Lane Ca aci Existing Peak Hr. Vol Exist VIC Regional Growth Vol Projected VIC Proj Vol Proj VIC 0.0612 NL 1600 103 0.064 1 6 NT 1600 155 0.148 9 NR 0.066 82" 0.066 5 SL 1600 55 0.034 3 ST 1600 98 0.100 6 SR 1 6 62 4 EL 1600 28 0.018 2 ET 3200 1011 0.326 62 ER 0.124 33 0.131 2 W L 1600 27 0.017 2 WT 3200 702 0.239 43 WR 53 62 3 4 0.035 ET 3200 1002 Exist ICU 0.526 Future w/o pro' ICU Future wf proj ICU Existing Plus Background Growth Santa Ana and 17th 2003 PM Movement xisting Lane Capacity Existing Peak Hr. Vol Exist VIC Regional Growth Vol Projected VIC Proj Vol Proj VIC 0.0612 NL 1600 100 0.063 1 6 0.066 0.066 NT 1600 133 --O-1-42---1 8 1 0.151 0.151 NR 94 1 6 SL 1600 128 0.080 8 1 0.085 0.085 ST 1600 118 0.124 7 0.131 0.131 SR 80 5 EL 1600 53 0.033 3 0.035 0.035 ET 3200 1002 0.320 61 0.340 5 0.341 ER 22 1 W L 1600 71 0.044 4 0.047 0.047 WT 3200 1177 0.398 72 0.422 14 0.426 W R 95 6 Exist ICU 0.653 Future w/o proj ICU 0.692 Future wl raj ICU 0.697 I Existing Plus Background Growth Tustin and 17th 2003 AM Movement ds ing Lane Capacityl xis ng Peak Hr. Vol Exist V/C Regional Growth Vol Projected V/C Pro' Vol Pro' V/C 0.0612 N 1600 124 0.078 8 0.082 0.082 NT 1600 181 0.154 11 0.163 0.163 N R 65 4 SL 1600 55 0.034 3 0.036 0.036 ST 1600 77 0.048 5 0.051 0.051 SR 1600 34 0.021 2 0.023 0.023 EL 1600 29 0.018 2 0.019 0.019 ET 3200 952 0.323 58 0.343 1 9 0.346 ER 83 5 WL 1600 33 0.021 2 0.022 0.022 WT 3200 689 0.224 42 0.238 2 0.239 W R 29 2 Exist ICU 0.532 Future w/o pro' ICU 0.565 Future wl proj ICU 0.568 Existing Plus Background Growth Tustin and 17th 2003 P.M M Rs mg Lane Capacity Exist mg Peak Hr. Vol Exist VIC Regional Growth Vol Projected V/C Proj Vol Pro' VIC 0.0612 NL 1600 97 0.061 6 0.064 0.064 NT 1600 125 0.122 8 0.129 0.129 NR 70 4 SL 1600 84 0.053 5 0.056 0.056 ST 1600 106 0.066 6 0.070 0.070 SR 1600 12 0.008 1 0.008 0.008 EL 1600 56 0.035 3 0.037 0.037 ET 3200 1015 0.339 62 0.360 5 0.361 ER 70 4 W L 1600 91 0.057 6 0.060 0.060 WT 3200 1207 0.401 74 0.425 14 0.430 W R 76 5 Exist ICU 0.610 Future w/o proj ICU 0.648 Future w/ proj ICU 0.6521 Appd)i e0 ter{ ) Traffic Phasing Data 21- MAY -04 Projects Less Than 100% Complete :ct Number Project Name Percent 147 BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION 0% 148 FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION 36% 154 TEMPLE BAT YAHM EXPANSION 65% 157 FORD REDEVELOPMENT 95% 167 CANNERY LOFTS VILLAGE 0% 168 HOAG HOSPITAL PHASE II 0% 555 CIOSA - IRVINE PROJECT 91% 910 NEWPORT DUNES 0% 935 IRVINE DEVELOPMENT 1999 0% 936 1401 DOVE STREET 0% 937 NEWPORT AUTO CENTER EXPAN 0% 938 OLSEN TOWNHOME PROJECT (1 0% 939 BAYVIEW LANDING SENIOR HO 0% 940 BIRCH BAYVIEW PLAZA 11 0% 941 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BL 0% 942 401 OLD NEWPORT BL 0% page: 1 \ � § e 8§ � § k2\ $ }� }2; a ae ]2\ � � 7 � } f m: \\ E Z \ ( LLI E: ® $/ \` �%)\ E $( 2_� 7(L ,/)q 3:` _ ;- - \ » 3:` 5 LU ` » E E UY � ` uy o�■ omc co . s.� .0 0- m I:- &Ck �7 C @:` K « LU \ r:( go; � , \ {� 76 Go :` , @ . ):_ / to \ #O� 5 .¢ «� =: I � .¢ =: I � §LIJ § � 2 }§: § ` \ 0 � (' 0 o�c §m 2 ' . � � j E Z� _ Z: z IL \ ■2 » & e $ § C § g. CL § (§ : 2:z $: #�& ]co m Z: } z:m !: ) .¢ p a; 2 \: 4� /) I :, § § § a I; 2e , §\/ ■ °: o okc ¥ to a -� �k§ Z: U- / 0) § M G g` 2 ( $( +z : f . � ^ ` \ e : } °: ):e i ; z : ~ !� /) Q Eft R E E d N C E R C O > 0 CD O C o0 m aN+ t v 0. V O Ea L � N 7 0 M M al O } Q N Ph O S. C O w V m Lo c Q.; M W: N W J: W: Y (0 N a F � N N; W z; V N Z LL J J;� Z: F W E :: M: m: Z j C:Q y OW: F Y a, N [f]; ^N 0: Ea co; _ 7 Z: C' ¢a W: a v 3! Q e)A jr: I W: LU: r W: E J: E W : G 3 Y N m a v w =ly E CO: —' o > CL p e � C O �' v co to 0 a ^ i �Np X: r N o CD z: a� d O J; Q p Z: Q a' W O Cu:� m;�v 2r: Z;x - m : r O W; F- Y NCO: a m: E E:� x Z; N r } M Z:NN Z' Q C: as e)A d y v Ec O rno C co R rN+ t ti a o Ea L � O Q CL Zi 0 T d N It O CL m c O w 0 m d tco� J; C�: W; J: W: N a t u): I-- J! Z; W a z: z J; � z: r� E m CD CO E r Z':Q U 1E m'.ro rn o W; H Y N 0]' a y: E:M Z: �y Z' C �IL ¢a m a; 2� »:& § ]:, 9 ` fCL 0 E: 2 � E � � � 0-I a§ 0 § ` \ \ \� ` o�■ oc� cco . . � t to k J a. k J ƒ ƒ: ®. J�k ® � ) ) \ \ g g w ; ; e e \ 0 0 Z Z: / 2 � | : : z 0 TF =�r © &: /aa � § § � 2 TF m § § � 2 L aE I:fa § \\CL 0 E ` Ek) LU \ k � � Z: Via£ a 2 G: R 2 j . CL § Z: « _ � :$ ■::_ £�) $ :Q m W: ^� } ~ &+ m N @ m w:N W: H.' W; W E J N D E W;�N 3 N � fA 0 a = d N P U), 3 C Q 0 C F: U; 0 J: y Oo�D O _C N V l0 a V d z;� z; O v d ❑ z: z: o O Q. } J: N 7 C 4 z: a m W C:0 U y t0 m!om oW F Y N C!]' N c .0 O IL E : Ey° o z'�d' N Z. Z: r I N ¢al m TABLE 3 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS Z PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM 1N OUT IN OUT Residential - Apartments DU 0.50 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 1.43 7.26 22.44 Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates, Institue of Transportation Engineers {ITE }, Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997, Land Use Categorf 710 2 DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet 1,1:i iJcJobs100636 '',E;ceR;0063602.xlsjT 3.1 3 -2 TABLE 3 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM Ph1 IN OUT IN OUT Ezisfing Credits` - Commercial Retail 3.8 TSF 2 2 7 8 171 Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 15 76 233 TOTAL CREDITS 29 6 23 83 404 Proposed Project Residential - Apartments 28 DU 25 12 12 6 t81 Commercial Retail 19.6 TSF 12 10 37 39 882 ,Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 1s 76 233 TOTAL 64 26 64 121 1,296 NET NEW TRIPS - 20 4i 38 892 DU = Dwelling Unit TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:SUc,lobs=63a' ExceAt00836.02.xis]T 3 -2 3 -3 SO r z � �. �e . � nz a —s >® R § ) |§ \ ( S $ : w 0 j � TABLE R -1 TRIP GENERATION RATESf WEEKDAY CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES DAILY RATE AM IN IN OUT IN OUT Morman Temple Rates Based on: Thousand Square Feet 3.12 2.99 =A.11 Thousand Square Feet 1.12 0.28 0.93 O.So 23.A6 WEEKEND CONDITIONS Source: Empirical data collection/trip generation analysis conducted by Solaegui Engineers, LTD (September 15, 2001) Lk VU N00636- 02.xts]TA -1 PEAK HOUR TRIP DAILY RATE LAND USE IN OUT Morman Temple Rates Based on: Thousand Square Feet 3.12 2.99 =A.11 Source: Empirical data collection/trip generation analysis conducted by Solaegui Engineers, LTD (September 15, 2001) Lk VU N00636- 02.xts]TA -1 TABLE 4 -2 NEWPORT BEACH MORMON TEMPLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY LAND USE QUANTI UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Mormon Temple Thousand Square Feet 1 17.46 1 TSF 1 20 1 5 16 10 1 410 WEEKEND LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS PEAK HOUR IN OUT DAILY Mormon Temple Thousand Square Feet 1 17.46 1 TSF 1 54 52 770 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet f' f U:%UcJO4sIO06361ExceR [00636- 02.xlsIT4.2 L 4 -3 x YY M1 �_ i F a I t O4 b F w! 4 -5 z W_ C a COAST y1 Z V C W �.:. ,... .. .. .. .,..... . mu F w! 4 -5 z TA13LE 5-1 TRIP GENF-RATION RATE§ I LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM w OUT IN mT Church AF 0. 0=8 0,03 034 i 0-30 NIA3 Daycare 1 eF a« 6,12 6.40 7.22 79.26 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 N/A = Not Available U:kUcJobs\00636\EXoei\[OM6-02-XISIT 5-1 5-2 � TABLE 5.2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN FOUT IN OUT Church 34.8 TSF 3 i 12 10 N/9 Daycare 4.720 TSF 33 29 30 34 374 OTAL 36 30 42 44 NIA ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 N/A =Not Available U:\ IJCJObslO0636TXCW00636.02.xis]T 5.2 5 -3 Q�� 1 X COAST ` e>tti � e a I I d 1 � _ � a in LU ® E �5 "itt '3nY t 4 U i1g2a � AddOdt tC `�' [L i L = '3Ab ( set a a �µ MlGUEL R F$1{ SAV auh e 1S r — w(A Do P 7 __ ! QM3�tla r aA p V v � s1 b0 aifaPM 9Ab MAUI m '3AV k315li1 °cI G Z _ V 7Ab 39NtlaD O '181a6aM3k le 901a3aO5 SS'a5 ss -as m; < F/ yj b Al 4P ✓ ' QS�Ea Z 4�V SI f-I ?� J� 'TS g 7 pb JQS V c�A w AFC cI a of Z( c J�� ) 0 0 CA �AV Ad,(Od W IAV BullanDwvw K SN Mlsurt < QOHN3MOq a 5-6 14 U-4 I . ki TABLE 6-1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' • LA ND USE AAA PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM .w I OUT IN OUT lChurch TSF 0.08 0.03 0.34 0.30 N/A' I I lClassrooms STU 0.18 0.12 NOW NOM 12 1 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; STU = Students NIA =Not Available 4 NOu =& » U:\Uciob_636Ex�l\[00636-02.xi!�IT G-1 6-2 El VE -4. Z �- 7T 97 1 -2- 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 STU I 45 30 0 0 273 Total 1 47 31 6 6 N/A ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet; STU = Students 2 N/A = Not Available U UcJobs�00636 \ExceP�[00636- 02.xls;T 6 -2 6 -3 �� •e� vi Z2i co ga ® s a� �f 3AV iN1NS{ to X L& I ST 0 t 5 f z ILU b O � f big O Y 5 V f F j � ♦ ,n y � � "a L1S 5 � 5 �� m I pp \v \- ♦ ♦ ..A ooxeaalo y of _ ��K 3 •e� vi �f 3AV iN1NS{ I 3"V NU :Vv1 vs O m �I 3`JNV80 pa NodmN � :aowuns i v as a4 4I � yo,� APE Kr� jam' z_ ul u.' LL `f w' 71 of �i 46 ul O6 tt' JpS u' r w 2. 6 -5 1 TABLE 7 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE,. UNITS2 PEAK HOUR DAIL AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church T SF i O.DS D.D3 0.30 NSA' ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 NIA = Not Available U:\ JC. iobs1006361Excell[00636 -02.x:s]T 7 -1 7 -2 TABLE 7 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION F LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM )N OUT IN QUT Church I TSF 3 1 11 10 N/A ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 N/A = Not Available U: 1UcJobs \00636%Exceh[00636- 02.xisrr 7 -2 7 -3 m W�� 6i1 I ♦ r 7 -5 N G 0 0 CO z L LU W 6 :U 8 J a e�JI 10 D TABLE 8 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN I OUT IN OUT Resort Hotel ROOMS 0.20 1 0.10 7 0.20 0.30 6.00 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates U= iUcJobs \00636" \Exce,[00636- 02.xis]T 4 -1 8 -2 5 �s 3 1 i i j TABLE 8 -Z PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS PEAK HOUR GAILY AM PM IN OUT N OUT Resort . Hotel. I 56 ROOMS. 31 16 1 31 47 936 U:1 UCJCb =_1006361Excelk[00636-02.x(s}T 41 EM 1 °� w \ bN } i ♦F9R�% 8 -5 A W1. W Ar, O K a 0 LL Q F Z V a^ 0 0 0 1`� TABLE 11 -1 PERSON TRIP GENERATION RATES' L HOUR DAILY PM IN OUT ITAM Person Trip Rates Club . TSF 1..26 0.85 2.93 1.93 54.14 lHealth Church, Synagogue TSF 0.63 0.38 0.55 0.46 13.09 High School STU 0.37 0.18 0.03 0.08 1.94 Elementa , Middle School STU 0.24 0.17 0.03 0.07 1.54 Child Care Center TSF 9.53 9.14 6.13 1325 99.99 Source: City of Wine Exodus Community Center and Tarbut VTorah Expansion Traffic Study Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2 STU = Students TSF = Thousand Square Feet u:%UcJO6sX00636XEXc R[00636L2x[sT 41 -1 11 -2 t- 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, Synagogue 83.49 TSF 53 32 46 38 1093 Hi h School 320 STU 118 58 10 26 621 Elementary, Middle School 160 STU 38 27 5 11 246 Child Care Center 27.78 TSF 265 254 170 368 2778 TOTAL PERSON TRIP GENERATION 535 412 374 537 7376 TOTAL VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION ` 331 253 244 333 5365 ' STU = Students TSF = Thousand Square Feet 2 Derived during traffic model mode choice process UAUCJOW00636`s- CeA[(Y,636�02 deIT 11 -2 11 -3 10� u U..J �s � 1 I 11 -5 R w O c n. 0 O LL O F ® 2 z V � a a ,�lltt $vim w C r° Z N ww U r? Z Z �6 2 Oa u N w n� 00 �r w? z� >> am a O r L Z F- Z ua U C O N a l v Cw C L 3i zl TABLE 12-1 TRIP GENERATION RATESi LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Condominium/-rownhouse DU 0.17 -T 0.49 0.47 0.36 8.10 Multi Family Dwelling DU .96 042 0.43 0.20 6.47 Single Family Detached Residential DU 0.26 0-70 0.70 0.40 11.00 IState Park (gross acres) AC 0.21 0.90 0,29 0.31 19.15 Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 DU = Dwelling Units AC = Acres U:ItJrJobs1 0G6361ExceR[00636-02.y1s]T 12-1 12-2 r. n TABLE 12 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION J DU = Dwelling Units AC =Acres eQ,tt,j';�, "'?fit+ +i�� `• U: 1` JcJobsl90536�F _xceA[00536 -02xlsJT 12 -2 jGv eL ?(„Ytj 12-3 lb� QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR E DAILY 980 TAZ PLANNING AREA LAND USE AM PM IN 21 OUT 59 IN 57 OUT 44 1A Condominium/Townhouse 121 DU 18 Single Family Detached Residential 1 36 DU 7 25 25 14 396 1C Condominiurni7ownhouse 888 DU 151 435 417 320 7,193 '1 2A Single Family Detached Residentia— -7 „ -•206 1 -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 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 3B 450 DU 90 315 315 180 4,950 4B Single Family Detached Residential 587 DU 117 411 411 235 6,457 2 13A Multi Family Dwelling 117 DU 105 49 50 23 757 13B Multi Family Dwelling DU 105 49 50 23 757 14 Single Family Detached Residential 26 DU 5 18 18 10 286 17 State Park (gross acres) 2,807 AC 589 2,526 814 870 53,754 TOTAL FORT AL 2 1080 3.611 1,9D1 1.480 70,778 3 28 4A Single Family Detached Residential Single Family Detached Residential 62 784 DU DU 1 1 157 3 549 43 549 25 314 682 8,624 TOTAL FOR TRZ 3 115 592 592 339 9,3Do 2C Single Family Detached Residential 307 F DU 61 215 215 123 3,377 5 Single Family Detached Residential 300 DU 60 210 ..210 120 3,300 4 6 Single Family Detached Residential 75 U DU—T- 15 53 53 30 825 .8 Condominiumffownhot>te 289 ; DU 1 49 142 136 104 2,341 TOTAL FOR TAZ 4 1 185 I 620 614 377 9:843 OTAL FOR ALL ZONES -1 4,966-1- 5,633 3,91X7 2,725 1 03,015 J DU = Dwelling Units AC =Acres eQ,tt,j';�, "'?fit+ +i�� `• U: 1` JcJobsl90536�F _xceA[00536 -02xlsJT 12 -2 jGv eL ?(„Ytj 12-3 lb� O f r ^L♦ L f ♦ ♦ j f } 1 E s� 0 M37MV9 O f s m •ts �o9i9 io9nawv� ms 0 cj 12 —c m ORI p m 70 Ile I >Z mZ ZM �a- �a sda b y�fA H N Q H Q C V 0— � 3MM 2 F Q w V K 0 Nb M- C4 12-6 0 n a a t F W 12 -7 N F U m �I V ..; c f O \ b L r .._ Lryo8 \ 1j t 7 , t i D 12 -8 N 4J1el fl .I 6 p� i y6 J ZI �N)-1, V1Q. f W J ti J �E V w, C p� i y6 J ZI �N)-1, TABLE 13 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS2 PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Multi Family Dwelling DU 1 ; 490 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 1 0.50 1 1.90 j 2.00 1 45.00 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:!Uc- fobs \00536 \Excei\[00636- 02.xls]T 13 -1 13 -2 I I 1' TABLE 13 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TAZ PLANNING AREA LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM FM IN OUT IN OUT 1A Single Family Detached Residential 93 DU 19 65 65 37 1,023 2 Sinale 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 68 88 50 1,375 5 Multi Family Dwelling 100 DU 90 42 43 20 647 1 7 Multi Family Dwelling 63 DU 57 26 27 13 408 8 MUPa Fami!• Dwelling 112. DU 101 47 48 22 725 9 Multi Family Dwelling 112 DU 101 47 48 22 725 11 ,Single Family Detached Residential 323 DU 65 226 226 129 3,553 12 Commercial 102.959 TSF 62 51 196 206 4,633 12 Single Family Detached Residential 200 DU 34 98 94 72 1,620 TOTAL FOR TAZ 1 611 890 I 1,035 665 17,844 21 Single Family Detached Residential 350 DU 70 245 245 140 3,850 2 22 Single Family Detached Residential 705 DU 141 494 494 282 7,755 TOTAL FOR TAZ 2 211 739 739 422 11,605 13 Mufti Family Dwelfin2 347 DU 312 146 149 69 2,245 3 ' 14 Single Fami!v Detzched Residential 26 DU 5 18 18 10 286 15 Multi Family Dwelling 547 DU 492 230 235 109 1 3,539 if TO T AL FOP, I AZ 3 809 394 402 188 6,070 TOT' L FOR ALL ZONES 1.631 1 2.023 2,17E 1.295 I 35.519 DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U:1UcJas5 00636�,FxceA [00636 -02x15)7132 �t 13-3 �� 0 0 ti t r ht u 13 -5 m A w 0 c 0. 0.. 0 Z u UA W �* a tai ° J ° ral f� O ♦ b y ~ ` ♦ Oy0a F l I N Q m m 7� COAST as SS Hitt yv AAJOJ 6O iAV N wm3(19HWI SAN MIG0EL i R � g OOHN3�61tl0 p �JP 9t vwO a A` �P < vy ��p S ,n n JC Q� u l 3Atl 3NIA111 � n 'VNtl VWtlS Z ry iAV 39NVN0 is 1130d 31,[ fn i 55'tl5 9v �S j P �t 'LO�iZi �P SyrSi ; �' 6pb'r 620 ti psi r L k t k A l y6 1 Sgb S {5{ t O6 aJF 13 -6 R 0 O I 4 13-7 Li I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANA L MIS INTERSECTION COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSIDE DRIVE 5440 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR 1. VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTHI VOLUME I APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 421 13 3 437 4 0 Southbound 56 2 62 120 1 0 Eastbound 3125 95 101 3321 33 2 Westbound 1688 51 68 1807 18 7 �J 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. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSIDE DRIVE 5440 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 516 16 4 536 5 0 Southbound 73 2 too 175 2 0 Eastbound 2638 80 85 2803 28 11 Westbound 3172 96 70 3338 33 5 �X 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: DATE: 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTNG .PEAK:HOUR .1.REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME PEAK HOUR VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS .:,- :..PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 139 4 0 143 1 0 Southbound 1253 38 17 1308 13 3 Eastbound 2257 68 112 2437 24 5 Westbound 2018 61 81 2160 22 7 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. COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVEBAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DERECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 99 3 o 102 1 0 Southbound 1187 36 13 1236 12 17 Eastbound 1771 54 97 1922 19 3 Westbound 3699 112 99 3910 39 5 E � 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 I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: i� I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 (Exfstfng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 5 0 0 5 0 0 Southbound 355 11 0 366 4 0 Eastbound 2364 72 81 2517 25 5 Westbound 1345 41 74 1460 15 1 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- 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 37 1 0 38 0 0 Southbound 384 12 0 396 4 0 Eastbound 1776 54 102 1932 19 3 Westbound 2342 71 87 2500 25 6 0 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.• DATE: 9-\ 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING . PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL.GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS .. - .... PEAK HOUR. VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED .PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 54 2 0 56 1 0 Eastbound 2177 66 83 2326 23 5 Westbound 1349 41 66 1456 15 1 I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% 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. COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 (Existing Traffrc Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 74 2 0 76 1 0 Eastbound 1621 49 90 1760 18 3 Westbound 2391 72 83 2546 25 6 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: DATE: I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANA L YSIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & 161h ST./ CASTAWAYS LN 3260 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 689 21 2 712 7 12 Southbound 982 30 1 1013 10 2 Eastbound 155 5 1 161 2 1 Westbound 92 3 7 102 1 0 u 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. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL MIS INTERSECTION: DOVER DRIVE & 16th ST1 CASTAWAYS LN 3260 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1316 40 2 1358 14 8 Southbound 964 29 5 998 10 13 Eastbound 231 7 1 239 2 4 Westbound 99 0 4 103 1 0 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: DATE: 9 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. DOVER DRIVE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE 3290 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR. VOLUME PEAKHOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONAL GROWTH ;. PEAK HOUR. VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR. VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 741 22 5 768 8 9 Southbound 481 15 1 497 5 0 Eastbound 546 17 0 563 6 2 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 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. 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. DOVER DRIVE & WESTCLIFF DRIVE 3290 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEC REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1201 36 2 1239 12 6 Southbound 492 15 2 509 5 0 Eastbound 827 25 3 855 9 13 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 C� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% 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. PROJECT: DATE: I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. IRVINE AVE. & WESTCLIFF DRIVE/17TH ST. 3275 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 980 30 1 101110 9 1 Southbound 824 25 0 849 8 9 Eastbound 1049 32 1 1082 11 9 Westbound 460 14 0 474 5 4 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. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: IRVINE AVE. & WESTCLIFF DRIVE/17TH ST. 3275 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 875 27 0 902 9 7 Southbound 1337 41 0 1378 14 6 Eastbound 1087 33 2 1122 11 5 Westbound 908 28 0 936 9 21 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. OX 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: DATE: I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. IRVINE AVE. & DOVER DRJI9TH ST. 3385 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 A1W APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR .. VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONALGROWTH.- . PEAKHOUR.:..- VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED - PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 1146 35 1 1182 12 3 Southbound 972 29 1 1002 10 9 Eastbound 252 8 0 260 3 0 Westbound 356 11 4 371 4 1 0 I X 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. IRVINE AVE. & DOVER DRJI9TH ST. 3385 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 Phi) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJE REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 788 24 1 813 8 13 Southbound 1439 44 2 1485 15 6 Eastbound 189 6 0 195 2 0 Westbound 494 15 2 511 5 0 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 t% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT; DATE: �a� EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS Intersection No: North /South: Dover Dr East/West: W Coast Highway Existing plus Background Plus Cumulative Projects Movement Lane Exist +Back round Volume Cumulative Volume I VIC Ratio Movement Capacity AM PM AM PM AM PM NL 1600 32 25 0.02 0.02 0.02 NT 3200. 61 ...:.:::. 44,. .. 0.03 0.03 0.02 NR 50 33 SL SL 4800 1131 1020 50 85 0.25 0.23 ST 1600 62 68 0.04 0.04 0.04 SR 1600 115 148 3 4 0.07 0.10 EL EL 3200 102 130 2 4 0.03 0.04 ET 4800 2297 1769 164 291 0.52 0.43 ER 38 23 W L W L 1600 40 32 0.03 0.03 0.02 WT 4800 1447 2534 275 191 0.36 0.57 W R F 673 1344 81 57 ICU ICU 0.827 0.864 Level of Service (LOS) D D Existing plus Background lus Cumulative Projects plus Project Movement Lane Exist +Background +Prof Volume Cumulative Volume I V/C Ratio Cal PM AM PM AM PM NL 1600 32 25 1 0.02 0.02 NT 3200 61 44 0.03 0.02 NR 50 33 SL 4800 1133 1031 50 85 0.25 0.23 ST 1600 62 68 0.04 0.04 SR 1600 116 154 3 4 0.07 0.10 EL 3200 107 133 2 4 0.03 0.04 ET 4800 2297 1769 164 291 0.52 0.43 ER 38 23 W L 1600 40 32 0.03 0.02 WT 4800 1447 2534 275 191 0.36 0.57 WR F 680 1349 81 57 ICU 0.827 0.867 Level of Service (LOS) D D Intersection No: North /South: Dover Dr EastlWest: 16th St Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects Lane Exist + ro Backgund Volume Cumulative Volume VIC Ratio Movement Ca acity AM PM AM PM AM PM NL 1600 68 145 1 3 0.04 0.09 NT 3200 603 1187 79 51 0.23 0.39 NR 42 26 SL SL 1600 20 65 0.01 0.01 0.04 ST 3200. 974 899 48 83 0.32 0.32 SR 20 34 EL EL 1600 20 26 0.10 0.15 0.15 ET 9 20 ER ER 132 194 0 3 10.04 W L W L 1600 35 38 0.02 0.02 0.02 WT 1600 5 10 0.00 0.01 0.01 W R 1600 62 59 0.04 0.04 0.04 ICU 0.469 0.587 Level of Service (LOS) A A A Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects lus Pro ect Lane Exist +Background +Prof Volume Cumulative Volume V/C Ratio Movement Capacit AM PM AM PM AM PM N 1600 71 147 1 3 0.05 0.09 NT 3200 612 1193 79 51 023 0.40 NR 42 26 SL 1600 20 65 0.01 0.04 ST 3200 976 912 48 83 0.33 0.32 SR 20 34 EL 1600 20 26 0.10 0.15 ET 9 20 ER 133 198 0 3 W L 1600 35 38 0.02 0.02 WT 1600 5 10 0.00 0.01 W R 1600 62 59 0.04 0.04 ICU 0.472 0.591 Level of Service (LOS) A A �a� Intersection No: North /South: Dover Dr East/West: Westcliff Dr Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects M Lane Exist +Background Volume Cumulative Volume V/C Ratio I Ratio AM PM AM PM AM PM NL 3200 365 1031 77 47 0.14 0.34 NT 3200" "" 404 208 2 4 0.13 0.07 NR 0.07 NR 0 0 SL SL 0 0 ST 1600 466 399 3 4 0.29 0.25 SR 1600 31 110 31 110 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.07 EL 3200 88 181 88 181 0.03 0.06 ET 0.06 ET 0 0 ER F 475 674 45 79 45 79 WL WL WT WT WR WR CU R:::- 0.459 0.645 Level of Service (LOS) A B Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects plus Project Lane Exist +Back round +Pro Volume Cumulative Volume I Ratio Movement CaPar-itY AM PM AM PM AM PM NL 3200 374 1037 77 47 0.14 0.34 NT 3200 404 208 2 4 013 0.07 NR 0 0 SL 0 0 ST 1600 466 399 3 4 0.29 0.25 SR 1600 31 110 0.02 0.07 EL 3200 88 181 0.03 0.06 ET 0 0 ER F 477 687 45 79 WL WT WR ICU 0.461 0.647 Level of Service (LOS) A B ,41 Intersection No: North /South: Irvine Ave East/West: 17th St Existing plus Background plus Cumulative. Projects plus Project Lane Exist +Background Volume I Cumulative Volume I V/C Ratio Movement Capacity AM PM AM PM AM PM NL 3200 250 315 0 1 0.08 0.10 NT 3200 721 513 1 4 0.24 0.18 NR 40 73 40 73 SL 3200 206 175 212 179 0.06 0.05 ST 3200 513 819 1 4 0.20 0.38 SR 130 383 6 1 6 1 EL 3200 321 254 0 9 0.10 0.08 ET 3200 560 623 45 97 025 0.30 ER 200 244 0 1 0 1 W L 1600 45 97 45 97 0.03 0.06 WT 3200 352 775 89 51 0.16 0.28 WR 76 64 78 73 ICU 0.583 0.838 111-evel of Service (LOS) 0.841 A D Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects plus Project Lane Exist +Back round +pro' Volume Cumulattve Volume V/C Ratio Movement Ca acit AM PM AM PM AM PM NL 3200 250 318 0 1 0.08 0.10 NT 3200 722 517 1 4 0.24 0.19 NR 40 73 SL 3200 212 179 0.07 0.06 ST 3200 516 821 1 4 0.20 0.38 SR 130 383 6 1 EL 3200 321 254 0 9 0.10 0.08 ET 3200 567 627 45 97 0.25 0.30 ER 202 245 0 1 W L 1600 45 97 0.03 0.06 WT 3200 354 786 89 51 0.16 0.28 WR 78 73 ICU 0.587 0.841 Level of Service (LOS) A D Intersection No: North /South: Irvine Dr EasVWest: 19th St Existing plus Background Plus Cumulative Projects Lane Exist +Background Volume Cumulative Volume V/C Ratio Movement Ca acit AM PM AM PM AM PM NL 1600 45 64 0 1 0.03 0.04 NT" 3200 1162' 714 "" 0 3 0.36 0.24 NR 35 35 SL 1600 164 212 3 4 ST 3200 828 1231 1 SL 1600 164 212 3 4 0.10 0.14 ST 3200 819 1225 1 3 0.26 0.40 SR 20 47 1600 150 102 ER 26 38 D 1 EL 1600 83 55 W L 1600 0.05 0.03 ET 1600 150 102 105 217 0.11 0.09 ER 26 38 0 1 4 ICU Level of Service (LOS) W L 1600 16 45 0.01 0.03 WT 1600 105 217 0.07 0.14 W R 1600 248 248 2 4 0.16 0.16 ICU 0.580 0.609 Level of Service (LOS) A B Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects plus Projq Lane Exist +Background +Prof Volume Cumulative Volume Movement Capacity AM PM AM PM NL 1600 45 64 0 1 NT 3200 1105 727 0 3 NR 35 35 SL 1600 164 212 3 4 ST 3200 828 1231 1 3 SR 20 47 EL 1600 83 55 ET 1600 150 102 ER 26 38 D 1 W L 1600 16 45 WT 1600 105 217 WR 1600 248 248 2 4 ICU Level of Service (LOS) Cumulative Project Orange and 17th 2003 AM Movement Existing Lane Capacity Existing Peak Hr. Vol Exist V/C Regional Growth Vol Cumulative Proj Vol Projected V/C Project Vol With Project V/C 0.0612 NL 1600 86 0.054 5 0.057 0.057 NT 1600 230 0.173 14 0.183 0.183 NR 46 3 SL 1600 124 0.078 8 0.082 0.082 ST 1600 142 0.133 9 0.094 0.094 SR 71 4 - EL 1600 38 0.024 2 0.025 0.025 ET 3200 1018 0.318 62 45 0.352 9 0354 ER 1600 98 0.061 6 43 0.092 0.092 W L 1600 40 0.025 2 20 0.039 0.039 WT 3200 665 0.238 41 79 0.245 2 0.246 W R 98 6 Exist ICU 0.593 Future w/o pro' ICU 0.656' Future w/ proj ICU -0.658 Cumulative Proj Orange and 17th 2003 PM Movement Existing Lane Capacity Existing Peak Hr. Vol Exist VIC Regional Growth Vol Cumulative Proj Vol Projected VIC Pro' Vol Proj V/C 0.0612 NL 1600 143 0.089 9 0.095 0.095 NT 1600 239 0.193 15 0.204 0.204 NR 69 4 SL 1600 204 0.128 12 0.135 0.135 ST 1600 234 0.211 14 0.155 0.155 SR 103 6 - EL 1600 84 0.053 5 0.056 0.056 ET 3200 850 0.266 52 106 0.315 5 1 0.317 ER 1600 138 0,086 8 25 W L 1600 81 0.051 5 11 0.061 0.061 WT 3200 933 0.356 57 53 0.326 14 0,330 W R 207 13 Exist ICU 0.729 Future w/o projICU 0.721 Future w/ pro' ICU 0.725 Cumulative Proj 2003 AM Oalfw ml la alIY it". Existing Lane Capacity Existing Peak Hr. Vol Exist VIC Regional Growth Vol Cumulative Proj Vol Projected VIC Proj Vol Proj VIC 0.0612 NL 1600 103 0.064 6 0.068 0.068 kNR 1600 155 0.148 9 0.157 0.157 NR 82 5 .. SL 1600 55 0.034 3 0.036 0.036 ST 1600 98 0.100 6 0.106 0.106 SR 62 4 EL 1600 28 0.018. 2 0.019 0.019 ET 3200 1011 0.326 62 45 0.360 9 0.363 ER 33 2 WL 1600 27 0.017 2 0.018 0.018 WT 3200 702 0.239 43 95 0.283 2 0.284 W R 62 4 Exist ICU 0.526 Future wlo roj ICU 0.572 Future wl proj ICU 0.575 Cumulative Proj J A 1.1 2003 PM Jai lw l rla al DU Movement 11111 xistmg Lane Capacity fisting Peak Hr. Vol Exist VIC Regional Growth Vol Cumulatl ve Proj Vol Projected VIC Pro Vol Pro VIC 0.0612 NL 1600 1 100 0.063 6 0.066 0.066 NT 1600 133 0.142 8 1 0.151 0.151 NR 94 6 SL 1600 128 0.080 8 0.085 0.085 ST 1600 118 0.124 7 0.131 0.131 SR 80 5 EL 1600 53 0.033 3 0.035 0.035 ET 3200 1002 0.320 61 106 0.373 5 0.374 ER 22 1 W L 1600 71 0.044 4 0.047 0.047 WT 3200 1177 1 0.398 72 54 0.439 14 0.443 W R 95 6 Exist ICU 0.653 Future wlo roj ICU 0.709 Future wl ro' ICU 0.714 l�� Cumulative Proj Tustin and 17th 2003 AM Movement Existing Lane Capacity Existing Peak Hr. Vol Exist V/C Regional Growth Vol Cumumve Proj Vol Projected Vic Pro' Vol Pro V/C 0.0612 NL 1600 124 0.078 8 0.082 0.082 NT 1600 181 0.154 11 0.163 0163 NR 65 4 SL 1600 55 0.034 3 1 0.036 0.036 ST 1600 77 0.048 5 0.051 0.051 SR 1600 34 0.021 2 0.023 0.023 EL 1600 29 0.018 2 0.019 0.019 ET 3200 1 952 0.323 58 45 0357 1 9 0.360 ER 83 5 WL 1600 33 0.021 2 0.022 0.022 WT 3200 689 0.224 42 95 0.268 2 0.268 W R 29 if 2 Exist ICU 0.532 Future w/o proj ICU 0.579 Future w/ pro' ICU 0.582 Cumulative Proj Tustin and 17th 2003 PM Movement Existing Lane Ca achy Existing Peak Hr. Vol Exist V/C Regional Growth Vol Cumulative Proj Vol Projected Vic Proj Vol Proj Vic 0.0612 NL 1600 97 0.061 6 0.064 0.064 NT 1600 125 0.122 8 0.129 0.129 NR 70 4 SL 1600 84 0.053 5 0.056 0.056 ST 1600 106 0.066 6 0.070 0.070 SR 1600 12 0.008 1 0.008 0.008 EL 1600 56 0.035 3 0.037 0.037 ET 3200 1015 0.339 62 1 106 0.393 1 5 0.395 ER 70 4 W L 1600 91 0.057 6 0.060 0.060 WT 3200 1207 0.401 74 54 0.442 14 0.447 W R 76 5 Exist ICU 0.610 Future w/o proj ICU 0.665 Future w/ proj ICU 0.669 0