The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-24 - Approve Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012-002, Traffic Study TS2012-005 and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan AH2012-001 for Uptown NewportRESOLUTION NO. 2013 -24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2012 -002, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -005 AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2012 -001 FOR THE 25.05 ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS UPTOWN NEWPORT LOCATED AT 4311 -4321 JAMBOREE ROAD (PA2011 -134) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Uptown Newport LP ( "Uptown Newport" or "Applicant ") with respect to a 25.05 -acre property generally located on the north side of Jamboree Road between Birch Street and the intersection of Von Karman Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, legally described as Lots 1 and 2 of Tract No. 7953 and incorporated herein by reference, (the "Property ") requesting approval for the development of up to 1,244 residential dwelling units, 11,500 square feet of retail commercial uses and 2.05 acres of parklands (the "Project "). The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: a. Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003: An amendment to Planned Community Development Plan #15 (Koll Center Planned Community) to remove the subject property from the Koll Center Planned Community, pursuant to Chapter 20.66 (Amendments) of the Municipal Code. Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2012 -001: A Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) adoption to establish the allowable land uses, general development regulations, and implementation and administrative procedures, which would serve as the zoning document for the construction of up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail commercial, and 2.05 acres of park space to be built in two separate phases on a 25.05 -acre site, pursuant to Chapter 20.56 of the Municipal Code. The PCDP has three (3) components: 1) Land Uses, Development Standards & Procedures; 2) Phasing Plan; and 3) Design Guidelines. C. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002: A tentative tract map to establish lots for residential development purposes pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code. Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005: A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. e. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2012 -001: A program specifying how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements, pursuant to Chapter 19.53 (Inclusionary Housing) and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Municipal Code. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 2 of 36 f. Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003: A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport Beach describing development rights and public benefits, pursuant to Section 15.45.020.A.2.a of the Municipal Code and General Plan Land Use Policy LU6.15.12. 2. The Property has a General Plan designation of Mixed -Use District Horizontal -2 (MU- 112), and the Property is located within the Airport Business Area, for which the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (1CDP ") has been adopted. The ICDP allocates a maximum of 1,244 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet of retail to be developed on the Property. 3. The Property is currently located within the City of Newport Beach ( "City ") Koll Center Newport Planned Community and is designated as Industrial Site 1. 4. On February 7, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1908, recommending to the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (FEIR) and approval of the Project to the City Council. 5. The City Council held a public hearing on February 26, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC "). The FEIR which consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Comments, Responses to Comments, Revisions to DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at the scheduled hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION 6. The Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) was prepared for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 7. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report, and adopted "Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for the Uptown Newport Project Final Environmental Impact Report" ( "CEQA Findings ") containing within Resolution No. 2013 -21 on February 26, 2013, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 8. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the certification of the Uptown Newport Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010051094) by Resolution No. 2013 -22 on February 26, 2013, which is hereby incorporated reference. 9. The City Council overruled the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's determination that the Uptown Newport project is inconsistent with the Airport Environs City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 3 of 36 Land Use Plan for the John Wayne Airport by Resolution No. 2013 -23 on February 26, 2013, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 10. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS 11. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan and the ICDP. The City Council concurs with the conclusion of the consistency analysis of the proposed project with these goals and policies provided in the DEIR. 12. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of the Tentative Tract Map in accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070 are provided in Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference. 13. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of the Traffic Study in accordance with NBMC Section 15.40.030 are provided in Exhibit D and are incorporated herein by reference. 14. The proposed affordable housing implementation plan (AHIP) is consistent with the intent to implement affordable housing goals within the City pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 -65918 ( "State Bonus Density Law "), Title 19, Chapter 19.54 (Inclusionary Code), and Title 20, Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The State Density Bonus Law and the City's Density Bonus Code provide for an increase in the number of units of up to thirty -five percent (35 %) above the maximum number of units allowed by the General Plan provided the Project constructs a minimum number of affordable units depending upon what income category is served. At the maximum density bonus of 35 %, the Project could accommodate up to 322 additional units above the 922 base units allowed by the General Plan for a total of 1,244 total units. SECTION 4. DECISION. • •- • s 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves: a. Tentative Tract Map No. NT2012 -002, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 4 of 36 b. Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference; and C. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12 -001, attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference. 2. This Resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 26th of February, 2013, Keith D. Curry, Mayor ATTEST: F P leilani I. Brown, City Clerk City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 5 of 36 EXHIBIT A REQUIRED FINDINGS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2012 -002 In accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. That the proposed Wrap and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Findin A -1. The Tentative Tract Map provides lot configurations consistent with the land uses, densities and intensities of the proposed PCDP, the General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -H2) and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP). MU -H2 provides for horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed -use buildings and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. Additionally, the ICDP allocates up to 1,244 residential units and 11,500 square feet of retail to be developed on the Property. Under the proposed Project, 632 units would be developed as replacement units for redevelopment of the existing industrial uses, 290 additive units would be allocated to the proposed Project in accordance with the City's General Plan and the ICDP and 322 density bonus units would be authorized pursuant to NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus), for a total of 1,244 residential units. The proposed residential community also includes 11,500 square feet allocated for neighborhood commercial uses and is therefore consistent with the intent of General Plan and ICDP. A -2. General Plan goal LU 2.1 seeks to accommodate uses that support the needs of City residents including housing, retail, services, employment and recreation. The Tentative Tract Map allows the development of a residential community, containing a mix of housing types, supporting retail and active parklands, consistent with the proposed PCDP, General Plan designation and ICDP, which encourage the development of coordinated, cohesive mixed use projects in the Airport Area, A -3. The Tentative Tract Map provides for the development of a cohesive planned community with a pattern of streets and blocks that provide a pedestrian - friendly environment, with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial and office areas. A network of paseos, open space and pedestrian walkways would be introduced into the community to serve as connections between Project neighborhoods and provide linkages to surrounding areas. Two one acre parks, as well as recreational open space amenities, are proposed. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 6 of 36 A -4. The streets on the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the roadway specifications of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Traffic control measures are also included with the Uptown Newport Planned Community to ensure proposed private roadways and City roadways function as intended. A -5. The Tentative Tract Map provides for the dedication of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights -of -way), or 2.0 acres of neighborhood parks. Phase 1 would include the dedication (the general public would have access to the park during daytime hours) and improvement of a neighborhood park with a minimum area of 1.3 acre and a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Phase 2 would include the dedication and improvement of a neighborhood park with a minimum area of 1.02 acre and a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Finding: B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development, Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. Overall site topography can be characterized as relatively flat. B -2. There are no known faults on or immediately adjacent to the Property. B -3. There are no geologic or physical constraints that would prevent the development of the site at the density proposed, or require variances or deviations from the applicable City development standards. Finding: C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. No drainages traverse the Property and no potential jurisdictional waters or wetlands areas are present on or immediately adjacent to the site. C -2. No sensitive habitats, plant species or animal species were observed onsite during the preparation of the El for the Project. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 7 of 36 C -3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, with the exception of the following significant and unavoidable impacts: A. Air Quality — Short term construction - related emission for Phases 1 and 2 of the project B. Land Use - A determination of inconsistency with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) C. Noise - Construction- related noise impacts for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project C -4. The mitigation measures identified in the DEIR are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those impacts identified above. The mitigation measures would be applied to the Project through the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. Finding: D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. There are no known faults on or immediately adjacent to the Property. D -2. The Project is conditioned to comply with all Building, Public Works and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the Applicant per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act, D -3. The Project's Phase 1 would generate an increase in Green House Gas ( "GHG °) emissions onsite but would not exceed the proposed South Coast Air Quality Management District per capita significance thresholds. At full build -out the Project would result in a net decrease in GHG emissions. D -4. Mitigation measures identified in the DEIR reduce potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to hazards were identified in the DEIR. D -5. While the north and northwest portions of the Property have soil and groundwater impacted by volatile organic compounds, the areas have been the primary focus of historical and ongoing soil and groundwater investigation and remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. D -6. No residential uses are allowed without first providing regulatory signoff from RWQB. Additionally residential uses will be setback a minimum of 200 feet from any hazardous materials as stated in Mitigation Measure 7 -2 of the DEIR. City Council Resolution Rio, 2013 -24 Page 8 of 36 Finding: E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: E -1. The Property contains existing public utilities easements that serve existing development that will be removed over time. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements proposed present no conflict with these easements. Existing easements will remain in their current designated locations or will be modified to be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. Finding: F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: F -1. The Property does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance and no portion of the Project site is covered by a Williamson Act contract. Finding: G. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (1) There is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding; G -1. The Property is not located in a specific plan area. Finding: H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 9 of 36 Facts in Support of Findinq: H -1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Community Development Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: J. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: 1 -1. Of the total 1,244 residential units in the Project, between 102 and up to 369 units would be set aside for affordable housing depending upon the target income group being served. Affordable housing obligations will be met through the construction of on -site affordable housing consistent with an approved Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP). Finding: J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Findinq: J -1. There is adequate sewer system capacity to serve the requirements of the proposed Project. The Project's PCDP and phasing plan ensure adequate utility infrastructure is provided per phase. The proposed Project would be able to tie into the existing sewer system without adversely affecting the system or causing any water quality affects or violating existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Wastewater from the project will be generated by residential and retail commercial uses and at full buildout; there will be a significant reduction in wastewater with the elimination of the existing semi - conductor manufacturing plant. Finding: K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Findinq: K -1. The Project site is not located within the Coastal Zone. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 10 of 36 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2012 -002 Note: The following is a list of acronyms used in the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 17438: • DA ._ Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003. • EIR No. ER2012 -001- Uptown Newport Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 2010051094. • M11 — Mitigation Measure, project specific measures recommended by the DEIR and adopted as part of the approval of the project to reduce potentially significant environmental effects to a level considered less than significant and stated at the end of a condition as a reference between the condition and a mitigation measure recommended in the DEIR� • MMRP — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the monitoring and reporting procedures Jar the Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and adopted as part of project approval pursuant to Section 21081.6(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act. • NBMC — Newport Beach Municipal Code. General Conditions City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 is in conjunction with its approval of Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003 for the same project (the "DA " ). Pursuant to Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the DA and the terms used therein that are defined in Section 1 of the DA, the "Term" of the DA becomes effective on the "Effective Date" of the DA. Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 and the DA comprise parts of a single integrated action and are not severable from one another. Accordingly, notwithstanding any other provision set forth in Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 to the contrary, in no event shall the owner, lessee, or other occupant or any person or entity holding any interest in the subject property acquire any right to develop or use the subject property as authorized or provided herein unless and until the Effective Date in the DA occurs and the Term of the DA commences. In the event the DA is terminated for any reason before the Effective Date of the DA occurs, including without limitation as a result of the mutual termination of the DA by the Parties thereto, the occurrence of an uncured material default under the DA by either Party and a termination of the DA by the non - defaulting Party, or the failure of the Effective Date of the DA to occur prior to the deadline set forth in the DA, as said deadline may be extended by mutual agreement of the Parties to the DA, then in such event Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 automatically shall become null and void and of no further force or effect, without any need or requirement for the City to schedule any public hearings or take any affirmative action or actions to revoke or rescind the same. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 11 of 36 2. Notwithstanding any provision expressly or impliedly to the contrary, in the event of any conflict or inconsistency between any of the terms or conditions of Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 and the DA, the terms and conditions of the DA shall control. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between or among the conditions of Tentative Tract Map No. 17438, the Director of Community Development shall determine the controlling condition, 3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 19.40, General Dedication Requirements. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and Chapter 15.42, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. Fair Share and Transportation Corridor Agency fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 shall expire 24 months from the date of approval pursuant to NBMC Chapter 19.16.010, unless an extension is otherwise granted by the City for the period of time provided for in the Development Agreement pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 66452.6(a). 7. The development of the project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, subject to modification by these Conditions of Approval. 8. Development of the project shall comply with the requirements of the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan and be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 dated November 28, 2012, except as modified by applicable conditions of approval and the DA. 9. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the City's approval of the Uptown Newport Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the Tentative Tract Map No. 17438, Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan No. PC 2012 -001, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2011 -003, Traffic Study No. TS2012 -005, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O12 -001, Development Agreement No. DA2012 -003, and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2010051094), and the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,, and /or statement of overriding considerations adopted for the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 12 of 36 damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand, from time to time, any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. The provisions herein shall not apply to the extent such damage, liability or claim is caused by the willful misconduct or sole active negligence of the City or the City's officers, officials, agents, employees, or representatives. 10. The applicant shall comply with all project design features, mitigation measures, and standard conditions contained within the approved MMRP of EIR SCH No. 2010051094 for the project. 11. The applicant shall have the sole obligation to fund or arrange funding for the planning, design, engineering, construction, supervision, inspection and all other costs associated with the site development, including construction of the two neighborhood parks, paseos, pedestrian sidewalks, Class 1 bike trail along the project frontage along Jamboree Road, and all public and private infrastructure, as further described in subsequent conditions of approval, including but not limited to; streets, landscaped parkways, water and sewer facilities, storm drains, and dry utilities to serve residential and commercial development as identified in the Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan. 12. New development within the project site shall be subject to the state - mandated school fees and Santa Ana Unified School District Measure G and C general obligation taxes based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses. 13. The project shall provide parkland and in -lieu fees in an amount consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.13 and the Newport Beach Subdivision Code. a. In accordance with Subdivision Code, the total Parkland Dedication Requirement is 13.62 acres. This total acreage is based upon the parkland dedication standard of 5 acres per 1,000 people established by Section 19.52.040, a total of 1,244 units authorized, and a 2010 Census population standard of 2.19 persons per household. b. A total of 2.05 acres of parkland shall be dedicated to the City consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.13. The timing of dedication shall be consistent with Section 19.52.090 of the Subdivision Code. C. The proposed public park in Phase 1 shall be included in the first final map in Phase 1 and the proposed public park in Phase 2 shall be included in the first final map in Phase 2. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 13 of 36 d. The residual parkland dedication requirement of 11.57 acres shall be satisfied by the payment of fees in -lieu of dedication in accordance with the Development Agreement. 14. N/A — Deleted= 15. N/A — Deleted. 16. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 2704. 1.1 Amendment, no person shall use or store any amount of extremely hazardous substances equal to or greater that the disclosable amounts as listed in Appendix A, part 355, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulation in a residential zone or adjacent to property developed with residential uses. 17. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 903.28, an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with California Fire Code Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings. 18. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 907.2.9, a manual fire alarm system that activates the occupant notification system shall be provided when any dwelling unit or sleeping unit is located three or more stories above the lowest level of exit discharge, or the building contains more than 16 dwelling or sleeping units. 19. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 906.1, 2A 10BC type fire extinguishers shall be required and installed on each floor or level. Travel distance to an extinguisher shall not exceed 75 feet from any point in a building. Parking garages shall be required to have a 2A 2013C located every 50 feet. 20. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 907.2.11.2, smoke alarms shall be installed and maintained on the ceiling or wall outside of each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of bedrooms, in each room used for sleeping purposes, and in each story within a dwelling unit. The smoke alarms shall be interconnected in such a manner that the activation of one alarm will activate all of the alarms in the individual unit. Smoke alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring and shall be equipped with a battery backup. 21. The applicant shall provide required fire flow in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline B.01 "Determination of Required Fire Flow ". 22. Fire hydrants shall be provided, located and, installed as per California Fire Code and Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline F.04. 23. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided as per Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01. The fire apparatus road shall extend to within 150 feet of all development, facilities, and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. Minimum width of a fire access roadway shall be 20 feet, no vehicle parking allowed. The width shall be increased to 26 feet within 30 feet of a hydrant, no vehicle parking allowed. Parking on one side is permitted on 28 -foot wide streets. Parking on City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 14 of 36 two sides permitted on 36 -foot wide streets. No parking is permitted on streets narrower than 28 feet in width. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. 24. The inside turning radius for an access road shall be 20 feet or greater. The outside turning radius shall be a minimum of 40 feet (without parking.) Cul -de -sacs with center obstruction shall require a larger turning radius as approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department. 25. Fire lane signage shall be provided as per Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C -02. 26. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 510.1 Amendment, emergency responder radio coverage shall be provided in buildings or structures that has more than three stories above grade plane or any building or structure, regardless of the number of stories, in which any single floor space exceeds 45,000 square feet, or any building or structure containing a subterranean space of 250 square feet or more, or any building or structure deemed likely to have diminished in- building communications. The emergency responder radio coverage shall comply with the Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline D.05 "Public Safety Radio System Coverage ". 27. In accordance with California Fire Code Section 905.3, standpipes shall be provided to all buildings where the floor level of the highest story is located more than 30 feet above the lowest level of Fire Department vehicle access, or buildings where the floor level of the lowest story is located more than 30 feet below the highest level of Fire Department vehicle access, or building that are two or more stories below the highest level of Fire Department vehicle access. 28. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 29. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 30. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, said damage shall be repaired and /or additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 31. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 32. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site shall be removed unless approved in conjunction with an encroachment permit or encroachment agreement. 33. Internal roadways shall comply with Council Policy L -4: a. 36 feet wide curb to curb with Parking on both sides City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 15 of 36 b. 32 feet wide curb to curb without Parking or parking on one side 34. Lots E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, U and R shall include a pedestrian and bicycle easement. The existing meandering sidewalk within the easement area shall be reconstructed consistent with City standard designs to provide a minimum 12 -foot wide public sidewalk and bike path, prior to the issuance of first building permit. 35. Any modifications to the easterly half of Jamboree Road, including but not limited to striping and median reconstruction requires approval from the City of Irvine. 36. Uptown Newport Sewer connections to private sewer located on Koll Site: a. If there are existing easements and rights established between the two properties, please note on the plans the easement recordation number for reference. b. Otherwise, Uptown Newport Project is required to obtain a letter from Koil Site authorizing the new connections to the private sewer. 37. The applicant shall obtain a Private Sewer Easement from adjacent property for the proposed sewer main which discharges towards Birch Street. If water or other utilities are proposed to be routed through this same area, the applicant shall obtain a Private Utilities Easement, instead. 38. Two new City of Newport Beach manholes are required on Birch Street for the proposed sewer main if constructed: a. One manhole per STD-401 -L to be installed adjacent to the property line. b. One manhole per STD -401 -L to be installed on the main where it tie -in with the existing City sewer line in Birch Street. Prior to Final Map Approval Note: Multiple final Tract maps may be prepared by the applicant and submitted for approval by the City. 39. Any inconsistency in the terms of the documents, maps or plans that establish, govern or regulate the subdivision, zoning or development of the Uptown Newport project shall be resolved by the Community Development Director. 40. Prior to Final Map approval the applicant shall obtain written verification of the availability of sufficient water supply from the Irvine Ranch Water District consistent with the requirements of Section 66473.7 (b) of the Subdivision Map Act. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 16 of 36 41. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit for review by the Director of Community Development and shall obtain City Attorney approval of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) prepared by an authorized professional and which CC &Rs will be recorded concurrently with the Final Map and which will generally provide for the following: a. Creation of a Master Association, and /or Sub - associations, for the purpose of providing for control over and maintenance at the expense of the Master Association and /or Sub - associations of the two neighborhood parks and common area improvements, which include, but are not limited, to the followings unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works; Jamboree Road parkway landscaping, internal project streets, sidewalks, paths, drive aisles, neighborhood parks, common landscape areas and irrigation; paseos and parkways /greenbelts; community walls and fencing; slopes; sewer laterals, water laterals, common utilities not maintained by the utility provider and drainage facilities. b. A provision that all internal streets, sidewalks, common landscape areas, paseos, parkways /greenbelts, walls and fencing within the tract, sewer and water laterals, are private and shall be maintained by, and at the expense of, the Master Association, or Sub - Associations) unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. C. A provision that all homeowners and residents will be provided, prior to purchase closing or upon signing of rental agreement, the information and requirements for water conservation pursuant to NBMC Chapter 14.16, Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations. d. A provision that the Master Association shall be required to advise residents that complaints about offensive odors may be reported to the City using online tools on the City web site and /or to the South Coast Air Quality Management District at 1- 800 - CUT -SMOG (1- 800 - 288 - 7664). e. A provision that all appropriate written notifications shall be provided to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within Uptown Newport project notifying them that the area is subject to noise from existing land uses, traffic on Jamboree Road, and construction of buildings within the project, and as a result residents and occupants of buildings may experience inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort arising from noise within the project. f. A provision that the neighborhood parks within Uptown Newport project shall have posted a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and related aircraft and noise. g. A provision that all appropriate written notifications shall be provided to all initial and subsequent buyers, lessees, and renters within Uptown Newport project notifying them that the project is in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport and as a result residents and occupants of buildings may experience inconvenience, City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 17 of 36 annoyance or discomfort arising from the noise resulting from aircraft operating at or near the airport. h. Information to be provided to future residents that uses and structures are subject to the requirements of the approved Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan. i. Lots O and M as shown on Tentative Tract Map 17438 shall be offered for dedication to the City of Newport Beach as a public park in perpetuity and maintained by a Master Association, a Sub - Association and /or other approved and appropriate agency, and that no structures, development or encroachment shall be permitted within the designated park area except as shown on the Final Map, approved Site Development Review, approved landscape and park improvement plans, or as otherwise approved by the City. j. Provisions that following recordation of each Final Map, each Association formed for the subdivision shall submit to the Community Development Director a list of all current Officers of the Association after each election. k. A provision requiring that proposed amendments to the CC &Rs shall be submitted for review to the Community Development Director or designee, and shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to the amendments being valid. A provision that the City is a third -party beneficiary to the CC &Rs and has the right, but not the obligation, to enforce any of the provisions of the CC &Rs. M. An agreement between the applicant and the Association that on an annual basis by June 1 of each year reports will be furnished to the Public Works Director in compliance with the reporting requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City with respect to the NPDES program. 42. Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall reflect on the Final Map or prepare separate instruments to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director all public access easements, deed restrictions or other instruments including but not limited to those providing for permanent public access to the neighborhood parks, common open space areas, paseos, internal streets and walkways and those providing City access for maintenance of storm drains or any public infrastructure. 41 Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit a park and open space management plan for review by the City Attorney and approval by the Director of Community Development, for the long term funding and management of Lots E through BB on Tentative Tract Map 17438 that contain neighborhood parks, paseos, common open space areas, and streets /paths /drive aisles within Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan. The park and open space management plan shall identify all entities responsible for ownership, management and maintenance of these areas and their credentials which qualify the entity as capable of management and maintenance of these areas and able to implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in the MMRP. The park and open space management plan shall City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 18 of 36 specify the timeline for commencement of implementation of the management plan by the management entity for these areas. Approval by the City of the long term management plan is a condition precedent to recordation of a final map. The park and open space management plan shall include but not be limited to identification of funding, management responsibilities, and maintenance activities in perpetuity for the neighborhood parks, paseos, common open space areas, and streets within Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan. 44. Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable development and Final Map fees associated with but not limited to Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney review of CC &Rs, map and plan check, hydrology review, geotechnical and soils reports review, park improvement plan review, grading plan review, traffic and transportation, and construction inspection. 45. Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director for review and shall obtain City Attorney approval o €, a buyer's notification disclosure form, to be given to all buyers and residents upon purchase closing, which indicates the location, if applicable, notification of potential exposure to soil and groundwater contamination, nuisances, noise, risk of upset and hazards, and/or objectionable odors of continued TowerJazz operation. 46. Prior to any Final Map approval, the applicant shall provide separate labor and material improvement bonds or irrevocable letters of credit in a form and amount acceptable to the Director of Public Works for 100% of estimated improvement cost, as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Director of Public Works, for each of the following, but not limited to, public and private improvements separately: Street improvements, monuments, sidewalks, striping and signage, neighborhood park improvements, street lights, sewer systems, water systems, storm drain and water quality management systems, erosion control, landscaping and irrigation in public rights of way, common open space areas accessible by the public, and off -site improvements required as part of the project. Prior to Recordation of Final Map /Vote: Multiple Final Maps may be prepared by the applicant and submitted for approval by the City. 47. All Tract Maps shall be recorded. All Maps shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CARD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 19 of 36 48. Prior to recordation of any Tract map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 49. Prior to recordation of any Final Map, the applicant shall submit for review and shall obtain the Public Works Director approval of applicable utility maintenance easements for water, electric, telephone as required for the Final Map to the benefits of utility companies. 50. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall show all easements proposed to be granted to the City of Newport Beach (ie. over roads for utilities, ingress and egress, pedestrian easements adjacent to internal streets) 51. Prior to recordation of the Final Map of any portion of the project site, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for the following as identified on Tentative Tract Map No. 17438: a. Neighborhood parks b. Easements for public access to common open space areas, public paseos, walkways and internal streets. 52. Prior to recordation of the Final Map of any portion of the project site, the Master Site Development Plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Prior to Issuance of Demolition or Grading Permits 53. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall pay any unpaid City administrative costs and unpaid costs incurred by City retained consultants associated with the processing of this application to the City. 54. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall pay all applicable City fees which may include but are not limited to map and plan check, water connection, sewer connection, hydrology review, geotechnical and soils reports review, grading plan review, traffic and transportation, and construction inspection. 55. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all existing survey monuments are located in the field in compliance with AB 1414 for restoration by the Registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor in accordance with Section 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. 56. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the limits of grading shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 must be verified by a Geotechnical Engineer. Grading shall not be City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 20 of 36 permitted to extend beyond the limits as indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 without approval of the Community Development Director. 57. Prior to issuance of grading permits a list of "good housekeeping" practices, consistent with the approved Water Quality Management Plan, shall be submitted by the contractor for incorporation into the long -term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants would be used, stored, or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. The WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non- structural BMPs. In addition the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable treatment - control) BMPs. 58. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit documentation in a form and of a content determined by the Community Development Director that any hazardous contaminated soils or other hazardous materials removed from the project site shall be transported only by a Licensed Hazardous Waste Hauler to approved hazardous materials disposal site, who shall be in compliance with all applicable State and federal requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations under 49 CFR (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards, and under 40 CFR 263 (Subtitle C of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act). The Director of Community Development shall verify that only Licensed Haulers who are operating in compliance with regulatory requirements are used to haul hazardous materials. 59. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Community Development Director shall review the grading plan for conformance with the grading shown on the approved tentative map. The grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City. Grading plans shall indicate all areas of grading, including remedial grading, and shall extend to the limits outside of the boundaries of an immediate area of development as required by the City. Grading shall be permitted within and outside of an area of immediate development, as approved by the City, for the grading of public roads, highways, park facilities, infrastructure, and other development - related improvements. Remedial grading for development shall be permitted within and outside of an immediate development area, as approved by the City, to adequately address geotechnical or soils conditions. Grading plans shall provide for temporary erosion control on all graded sites scheduled to remain unimproved for more than 30 days. 60. If the applicant submits a grading plan that deviates from the grading shown on the approved tentative map (specifically with regard to slope heights, slope ratios, pad elevations or configurations), as determined by the Community Development Director, the Community Development Director shall review the plan for a finding of substantial conformance. If the Community Development Director finds the plan not to be in substantial conformance, the applicant shall process a revised tentative map or, if a final map has been recorded, the applicant shall process a new tentative map. A determination of CEQA compliance shall also be required. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 21 of 36 61. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit and /or action that would permit project site disturbance, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach Police Department that a construction security service or equivalent service shall be established at the construction site along with other measures, as identified by the Police and the Public Works Departments, to be instituted during the grading and construction phase of the project. 62. Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Municipal Operations Department Director, a 1" =200' Utilities Master Plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer consistent with the Uptown Newport Master Development Plans showing all existing and proposed public and private sewer pump stations, force mains, laterals, mains and manholes, domestic water service facilities including gate and butterfly valves, pressure reducing stations, pressure zones, fire hydrants, meters, storm drain facilities to include storm drain mains, laterals, manholes, catch basins, inlets, detention and retention basins, water quality basins and energy dissipaters, outlets, pipe sizes, pipe types fiber optics, electricity, gas and telephone /telecommunications and any other related facilities as identified by the Municipal Operations Department Director, The Master Utilities Plan shall provide for the following: a. All public utilities shall be constructed within dedicated public rights of way and /or easements or as approved by the Public Works Director. b. The water quality infiltration basins within the neighborhood parks on Lots O and M shall be constructed, offered for dedication to the City as part of the neighborhood parks, and upon acceptance by the City, and shall be privately maintained by the entity identified in the open space management plan. 61 Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits, the applicant shall submit a construction management and delivery plan for each phase of construction to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. The construction management plan shall include, at a minimum, the following: a. Construction phasing plan. b. Parking plan for construction vehicles and plan for equipment storage. C. Construction area traffic management plan for the project for the issuance of a haul route permit. The traffic management plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer. The traffic management plan shall identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The traffic management plan shall identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the project. Construction traffic during both phases shall be City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 22 of 36 directed to and from Jamboree Road and shall not be allowed to utilize the Birch Street easement. Advanced written notice of temporary traffic disruptions shall be provided to emergency service providers and the affected area's businesses and the general public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. Haul operations shall be monitored by the Department of Public Works, and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. A staging area shall be designated on -site for construction equipment and supplies to be stored during construction. d. A construction and equipment staging area shall be identified within the project and shall be properly maintained and/or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. e. A construction fencing plan to include installation of a six- foot -high screen and security fence to be placed around the construction site during construction. f. A 24 hour hotline number shall be provided and conspicuously posted at all construction sites for complaints or questions regarding construction activities. g. Construction mitigation measures as required by the MMRP. h. A statement that all grading and construction shall comply with NBMC Section 10.28.040 (Noise Ordinance). L A statement requiring construction contractors to sweep paved roads within and adjacent to the project site if visible soil materials are carried to the streets. Street sweepers or roadway washing trucks shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1186 and shall use reclaimed water if available. I. A statement to be provided to all construction contractors that requires all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize short -term emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following: i. Clearing and grubbing: Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes. ii. Cut and fill: Pre -water soils prior to cut and fill activities and stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. iii. Earth- moving activities: Pre -apply water to depth of proposed cuts; re- City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 23 of 36 apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and stabilize soils once earth - moving activities are complete. iv. Jmportinglexporting of bulk materials: Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions. V. Stockpileslbulk material handling: Stabilize stockpiled materials; stockpiles within 100 yards of off -site occupied buildings must not be greater than 8 feet in height, must have a road bladed to the top of the pile to allow water truck access, or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. 64. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the Construction General Permit and submit the above to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 65. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works, The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. The WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. Prior to Issuance of Demolition and Building Permits 66. Prior to the issuance of building permits within each development phase of the project, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a "No Further Action" (NFA) declaration or a Letter of Allowance for residential construction for the portion of the site being developed. 67. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of residential and commercial uses, the applicant shall pay the required Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport Beach, as set forth in its Municipal Code ( §3.12 et seq.) for public improvements and facilities associated with the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, the City of Newport Beach Public Library, and City of Newport Beach public parks. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 24 of 36 68. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall obtain approval of a plan stating that water for firefighting purposes and an all weather fire access road shall be in place before any combustible materials are placed on site. Fire access roads shall be designed to support the 75,000 pound load of fire apparatus for year round weather conditions. 69. Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and shall obtain the approval of the Community Development Director, plans indicating the location and type of unit address lighting to be installed. 70. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay applicable fees to the Santa Ana Unified School District Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code Payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. 71. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, testing for all structures for presence of lead -based paint (LBP) and /or asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) shall be completed. The Asbestos- Abatement Contractor shall comply with notification and asbestos removal procedures outlined in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos - related air quality health risks. SCAQMD Rule 1403 applies to any demolition or renovation activity and the associated disturbance of ACMs, This requirement shall be included on the contractors' specifications and verified by the Director of Community Development. All demolition activities that may expose construction workers and /or the public to ACMs and /or LBP shall be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subchapter R (Toxic Substances Control Act); CalOSHA regulations (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations §1529 [Asbestos] and §1532.1 [Lead]); and SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities). The requirement to adhere to all applicable regulations shall be included in the contractor specifications, and such inclusion shall be verified by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a demolition permit. 72. Prior to issuance of applicable building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval, architectural plans and an accompanying noise study that demonstrates that interior noise levels in the habitable rooms of residential units due to exterior transportation noise sources would be 45 dBA CNEL or less. Where closed windows are required to achieve the 45 dBA CNEL limit, project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the California Building Code. 73. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 1, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The study shall demonstrate that all residential units would meet the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 25 of 36 (playgrounds, parks, and swimming pools). The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by implementing noise control measures at the TowerJazz facility and at the receiver locations, as described in detail in the Technical Memorandum provided by Wilson Ihrig and Associates (Appendix J of the FEIR). 74. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. The study shall demonstrate that all residential units would meet the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas (playgrounds, parks, and swimming pools). The necessary noise reduction may be achieved by implementing noise control measures at the receiver locations. The final grading and building plans shall incorporate the require noise barriers (patio enclosure, wall, berm, or combination wall /berm), and the property owner /developer shall install these barriers and enclosures. 75. Prior to issuance of applicable building permits, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Police Department, development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services. Public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans. The applicant shall prepare a list of project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. 76. Prior to the issuance of building permits plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director to include requirements that all contractor specifications include a note that architectural coatings shall be selected so that the VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. 77. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Development Director building plans designed to meet or exceed all State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Newport Beach codes in effect at the time of application for building permits. Commonly referred to as Title 24, these standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the use of energy - efficient building standards, including ventilation; insulation; construction; and the use of energy- saving appliances, conditioning systems, water heating, and lighting. Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes or calculations demonstrating compliance with energy standards. 78. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any residential, commercial, or park and recreation use, the applicant shall provide evidence satisfactory to the Fire Department that adequate permanent or temporary fire protection facilities are in place on the job site and are tested prior to placing any combustible material on the job site. 79. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2, evidence of the right to use the Birch Street easement acceptable to the City Attorney shall be provided. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 26 of 36 Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Use and Occupancy 80. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for any residential unit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department that the following disclosures and emergency notification procedures /programs are in place: a. Disclosure to potential Uptown Newport residences that hazardous chemicals are used and stored at the adjacent TowerJazz facility. b. Inclusion of property manager or authorized representative of the Uptown Newport residential community to the emergency notification list of the TowerJazz Business Emergency Plan. C. Program to inform/train the property manager or authorized representative of the Uptown Newport residential community in emergency response and evacuation procedures and to incorporate ongoing coordination between the Uptown Newport representative and TowerJazz to assure proper action in the event of an accident at the facility (shelter in place and/or evacuation routes). d. Update TowerJazz emergency alarm system to include concurrent notification to Uptown residents of chemical release. Provisions of the alarm system and emergency notification procedure shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. 81. Prior to issuance of certificate of use and occupancy for any residential or commercial use within each phase, the applicant shall complete construction of all applicable roadways, parkways, median and median landscaping, sidewalks, intersection street lights, signage and utilities including but not limited to water, water quality management, sewer, storm drain, fiber optics, gas, electricity, telephone and telecommunications necessary to serve the use and the above facilities shall be operational to serve the use, the extent of which shall be determined by the Public Works and Municipal Operations Departments. 82. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for residential dwelling units within Lots 1 and 15 of Phase 1, i) the improvements to the neighborhood park in Phase 1 (Lot O) shall be completed by the applicant, and ii) the CC &Rs, irrevocable offer of dedication, access easements, or other instruments providing for public access and use of the park facilities in perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the park facilities for public use, shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 83. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for residential dwelling units within Lots 12 and 14 of Phase 2, i) the improvements to the neighborhood park in Phase 2 (Lot M) shall be completed by the applicant, and ii) CC &Rs, irrevocable offer of dedication, access easements, or other instruments providing for public access and use of the park facilities in perpetuity, and including the timing for opening of the park City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 27 of 36 facilities for public use, shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, 84. Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that applicable street name signs have been installed. 85, Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for any sales center or model home complex, the applicant shall complete construction of roadway improvements adequate to serve the sales center or model home complex to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development. 86. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy for any residential, commercial, or retail use in the project all applicable master infrastructure improvements identified in the Final SWPPP and WQMP including debris basins, bio- swales, energy dissipaters, drainage pipes, water quality basins and other improvements shall be constructed and the applicant shall provide all necessary dedications, deed restrictions, covenants or other instruments for the long term maintenance of the facilities in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Public Works. 87. Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy for any residential, commercial, or park and recreation use, fire hydrants shall be installed and tested. Subdivision Improvement Plans 88. All subdivision improvement plans shall identify the use of best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control, sediment control, wind erosion control, storm water and non -storm water management, and waste management/pollution control. The BMP's identified for implementation shall demonstrate that potential effects on local site hydrology, runoff, and water quality remain in compliance with all required permits, City policies, and the Project's Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 89. The applicant shall design and/or construct all required onsite and offsite improvements within each development phase to permanent line and grade in accordance with NBMC Chapter 19.24 (Subdivision Design), with the exception of the deviations from this Chapter as described on TTM No. 17438 and approved by the Public Works Director. 90. The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite improvements within each development phase to permanent line and grade in accordance with NBMC Chapter 19.28 (Subdivision Improvement Requirements), with the exception of the deviations from this Chapter as described on TTM No. 17438 and approved by the Public Works Director. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 28 of 36 91. The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite improvements witin each development phase to permanent line and grade in accordance with Chapter 19.32(Improvement Plans). 92. Approval of improvement plans shall in no way relieve the applicant or the applicant's engineer of responsibility for the design of the improvements or from any deficiencies resulting from the design, nor from compliance with any tentative map condition of approval. 93. The applicant shall design and /or construct all required onsite and offsite improvements within each development phase to permanent line and grade in accordance with NBMC Chapter 19.36 (Completion of Improvements). 94. All new utility lines to serve the project shall be installed in underground trenches 95. Intersection design shall be approved by the Director of Public Works and comply with City's sight distance standards. 96. All subdivision improvement plans shall include the use of light emitting diode (LED) lights for street lights. 97. All subdivision improvement plans shall conform to the following Fire Department requirements: a, Detailed plans of underground fire service mains shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. These plans shall be a separate submittal to the Fire Department. b. Blue hydrant identification markers shall be placed with new hydrants. C. All weather access roads designed to support the 75,000 pound imposed load of fire apparatus for year round weather conditions shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction for emergency personnel. d. Fire apparatus access roads designed to support the 75,000 pound imposed load of fire apparatus for year round weather conditions shall be maintained and identified as per Newport Beach Guideline C.01 Emergency Fire Access and C.02 Fire Lane Identification. e. All security gates shall have knox locks for after hours emergency personnel access to the construction site. 98. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development that the Project CC &Rs have been approved by the City Attorney and the appropriate Association(s) has been formed. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 29 of 36 99. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all permanent survey monuments damaged or destroyed during construction are restored. 100. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that all street improvements damaged during construction have been repaired or replaced. 101. Prior to the release of financial security, the applicant shall submit as -built plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer depicting all street, traffic signal, sewer, water, and storm drain improvements and street signage and signage placements, traffic markings and painted curbing, and all other required improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 102. Prior to the release of financial security, all domestic water and sewer systems shall be fully tested in the presence of a City staff representative, to verify system performance in accordance with design specifications. 103. Prior to the release of financial security the applicant shall execute an agreement to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development which designates the maintenance responsibilities for all landscaping and irrigation systems in the Project. 104. Prior to the release of financial security the applicant shall submit as -built plans at an appropriate scale to the Recreation and Senior Services Director showing as -built neighborhood park improvements and paseos. 105. Prior to the release of financial security the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Municipal Operations Department Director that all underground public utilities necessary for the construction of residential, park, retail or commercial uses within each development phase to proceed as indicated on Tentative Tract Map No. 17438 have been completed in accordance with the approved Utilities Master Plan and that the as -built plans for said improvements, prepared by a Registered Civic Engineer have been submitted and approved by the Director of the Municipal Operations Department. 106. Consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.16, the amount of any credit against in- lieu of parkland dedication fees for recreational facilities within Public Recreational Open Space Areas (e.g. paseos) shall be based on the degree to which recreational facilities complement existing or proposed public park facilities serving the subdivision, as determined by the Community Development Director and the degree to which recreational facilities within the proposed paseos reduce the burden on existing or proposed public park facilities serving the subdivision. In no case shall the total credit exceed 30% of the Parkland Dedication Requirement. 107. Any document required to be recorded by the terms of these conditions shall be prior and superior to any monetary encumbrance of the project site except for non - delinquent general and special real property taxes and assessments. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 30 of 36 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NC. NT2012 -002 Exhibit C is available for review at the offices of Planning Division of Community Development and City Clerk or at http: / /newportbeachca.gov NOTES - EXISTING EASEMENTS O9 A GRANT OF EASEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1972 EXECUTED BY AND BETWEEN COLLINS RADIO COMPANY, DON KOLL COMPANY, INC AND DOLL CENTER NEWPORT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1.04 1.05 A PORTION THEREOF), I. e A 1 ( 0 108. 110 NO t 1 RECORDED NOVEMBER 6, 1972 IN BOOK 10413, PAGE 573 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 12 AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RECORDED AS BOOK I1W4. PAGE 152 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 15 AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RECORDED AS BOOK 11077, PACE 1117 OF OFMCAL RECORDS. 16 A NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF INGRESS AND EGRESS AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED MAY ], 1974 IN BOOR 11137, PACE 1008 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OVER A PORTION OF SAID PARCEL B -1. 18 AN EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAIN AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF FULL CENTER NEWPORT, A UM17D PARTNERSHIP, RECORDED AS HOW 11137, PAGE 1020 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 23 AN EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES W FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON RECORDED MARCH 7, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90- 120897 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 24 AN EASEMENT FOR COMMUNICATIM FACILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF PACIFIC BELL RECONM JULY 3, 1991 AS INSTRUMENT NO, 91- 346219 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 25 AN EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATOR OF AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CAUFORMA EDISON RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1992 AS INSTRUMENT NO 92- 594041 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 29 AN EASEMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACULTIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF COXCOM INC.. 0/B /A COX COMMUNICATIONS ORANGE COUNTY RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT N0, 2005000916240 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, 30 GRANT AND QUITCLAIM OF EASEMENTS FOR PASSAGE INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN DRIVEWAYS, ROADWAYS, SIOEVPLNS AND PASSAGEWAYS RECORDED MAY 26 1978 IN BOOK 12690 PAGE 854 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ACREAGES LOT AREA LOT AREA LAND USE: NO. AC UTUTY, PEDESTRIAN & AO 1 01% 0, A 0.11 OPEN SPACE, PUBUC ACCESS & UTLITY EASEMENT 2 0.57 B 0.04 LANDSCAPE & UTIUTY EASEMENT 3 L29 C 0.03 LANDSCAPE & UTILITY EASEMENT 4 IDS D 0.03 LANDSCAPE & UTILITY EASEMENT 5 1.34 E 0.03 PUBUC ACCESS, SGNACE, LANDSCAPE, UTUTY, PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE EASEMENT 6 0.97 F 0.04 PUBUC ACCESS. SWAGE, LANDSCAPE, U11UTY, PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE EASEMENT 7 0.74 C 0,04 PUBLIC ACCESS, SIGNAGE LANDSCAPE, UTUTY, PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE EASEMENT 8 0.82 H 0.12 PUBLIC ACCESS. SWAM LANDSCAPE, UMUN,, PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE EASEMENT 9 1.56 1 0.14 PUBLIC ACCESS. SIGNAGE, LANDSCAPE. UTUTY, PEDESTRJAN & BICYCLE EASEMENT 10 0.3D J 0.18 PUBLIC ACCESS. SWAGS, LANDSCAPE, UTBITY, PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE EASEMENT 11 1.18 K 0.10 PUBUC ACCESS, SIGNAL , LANDSCAPE, UTUTY, PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE EASEMENT 12 1.91 L 0.03 PUBLIC ACCESS, SGNAGE. LANDSCAPE, UTILITY, PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE EASEMENT 13 0.94 M 1.02 PARK 14 1.06 15 1.54 N 0 0.15 PUBLIC ACCESS, LANDSCAPE & UTUTY EASEMENT 1.03 PARK 1, GROSS AREA: 2505 ACRES 16 O.78 P 0.10 WEN SPACE, PUBUC ACCESS & I T UTY EASEMENT / v 17 0.67 0 1,76 ROAD WAY &. UTIUTY EASEMENT INC. MAP (FIRM), COMMUNITY PANELMAP NO. 02B6. EFFECTNE DATE. FEBRUARY R 0.04 ROAD WAY, UTILITY, PEDESTRIAN & SICYCE EASEMENT 15, 2004, IRVINE, CA 92614 S 0,25 BEEN SPACE, PUBUC ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT (549) 231 -5065 13 12 T 0.48 ROAD WAY & UTILITY EASEMENT 1� I 4. THOSE EXISTING EASEMENTS OR PORTIONS OF EXISTING EASEMENTS U 0.04 ROAD WAY, UTILITY, LANDSCAPE, PEDESTRIAN & SIICYCIE EASEMENT AFFECTING THE PROPERTY WY11N THE BOUNDARY OF THIS MAP WILL BE QUITCLAIMED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO ACCOMODATE THE FUTURE V 0.62 ROAD WAY & UTUTY EASEMENT / W 0.03 WEN SPACE & PUBUC ACCESS l b. PUBLIC ANGLED PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RIGHTS INTERNAL X 0.04 WEN SPACE & PUBUC ACCESS PRIVATE ROADWAYS WILL BE DOCUMENTED THE &R'ALONG 1 6 Y 0.10 WEN SPACE, PUBUC ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT ,I1 x' X. Ir' Z AA 0.36 WEN SPACE, PUBUC ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT 0.11 WEN SPACE, PUBUC ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT ^ ( )9 8. STREETS i0 BE PRIVATE AND PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. BB 0.23 PRIVATE ACCESS FOR LOT 11 & 12 erECM 4 x 0 14 / �PG III II, Ii : Pu 134/m N TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17A-18 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES - 3 4 i3 m a• H I 4S i F7 TAIL E" JAMBOREE ROAD SCAIF ,LED' LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING A SUSDMSION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF TRACT NO, 7953. IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 310 PAGES 7 TO 11, INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. GENERAL NOTES `O L% 1, GROSS AREA: 2505 ACRES OWNER /SUBDIVIDER 17 16 2. THE PRO,ECT IS WITHIN THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S UPTOWN NEWPORT LP /�e• CLEAR ZONE Z. AREA OF 500 -TEAR FLOOD ON THE FLOOD INSURANCE RAZE C/O SHOPOFF MANAGEMENT, INC. MAP (FIRM), COMMUNITY PANELMAP NO. 02B6. EFFECTNE DATE. FEBRUARY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 700 NET DEVA.WABLE AREA: 18.46AC 15, 2004, IRVINE, CA 92614 -- Tn anMIN (549) 231 -5065 13 12 3, THIS IENTATVE MAP MAY HAVE MULPPLE FINAL MAPS. (949) 417 -1399 FAX 1� I 4. THOSE EXISTING EASEMENTS OR PORTIONS OF EXISTING EASEMENTS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY WY11N THE BOUNDARY OF THIS MAP WILL BE QUITCLAIMED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO ACCOMODATE THE FUTURE LANG USE. / 5. ON SIZE SEWER AND STORM GRAIN WILL BE PRIVATE. l b. PUBLIC ANGLED PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RIGHTS INTERNAL Q.. 17 I PRIVATE ROADWAYS WILL BE DOCUMENTED THE &R'ALONG 1 6 7, ALL L BE P. SIDEWALKS, ANGLED PARKING AND PARHWAT WflLL BE FRIFATE NTH PARKWAY ,I1 x' X. Ir' PRIVATE MAINTENANCE AT 15 8. STREETS i0 BE PRIVATE AND PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. % �R\ I - -L3T 2 ',R M � EkiMV I _Ls9d=,42_RYr0000' GROSS AREA: 25.05 AC LESS ROADWAY, PARKWAY, SIDEWALK 4.54 AC `O L% - 17 16 T LESS PARK: 205 AC /�e• e 8 �n E m NET DEVA.WABLE AREA: 18.46AC t m�W�"` -- Tn anMIN Z 13 12 SEE MJM1rc 'A O 1� I GROSS AREA: 25.05 AC LESS ROADWAY, PARKWAY, SIDEWALK 4.54 AC `O L% - 17 16 T LESS PARK: 205 AC /�e• e A NET DEVA.WABLE AREA: 18.46AC /� c, •.� -- _I. a1 r _ a Z 13 12 1 M I �f B �'2 17 I DETAIL B" 1 6 ,I1 x' X. Ir' I 15 erECM 4 x 0 14 / �PG III II, Ii : Pu 134/m N Ivi 1.1 m J, VIII Iilll IIII sfE mAa al ¢s 2 3 4 R � 5 n qq a , rn a. JAMB OREL' 2OAD �J LEGEND 145' pyt1R gQ 05 V� - -- DIRECTOR OF DRAINAGE FLOW I FF FINISHED FLOOR PE = PAD ELEVATION PEI = PAD ELEVATION WMI 1 LEVEL OF PARKING BELOW GRADE PE2 = PAD ELEVATOR NTH 2 LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW GRADE TENTATIVE TRACT BOUNDARY PROPOSED LOT USE PROPOSED BUILDING PAD PROPOSED GRADE CONTOUR - -- ROADWAY CENTERLINE 3r CEL 4 N F u,. E4/22 ro BB I 11 �II 10 10' 9 Ft+��i. EB2/27 7 B f I t eZT'�.:LL Ar LLJW' Of Of f- LI'I =,b U I" i I 517' N40'36'2YE , PP,'. ELI 1 IR!'i.CK Z 42' A-Y 3 I x ^.. N/22 JAMBOREE JAMBOREE ROAD DETAIL "C" I 2 O1 I rNly I I M I �1. DETAIL D" av 120,_._40 scNle _- 1'= 120' Teel OW' c, •.� -- _I. a1 r _ a 1 M I �f B �'2 17 I DETAIL B" 1 6 ,I1 x' X. Ir' I t eZT'�.:LL Ar LLJW' Of Of f- LI'I =,b U I" i I 517' N40'36'2YE , PP,'. ELI 1 IR!'i.CK Z 42' A-Y 3 I x ^.. N/22 JAMBOREE JAMBOREE ROAD DETAIL "C" I 2 O1 I rNly I I M I �1. DETAIL D" av 120,_._40 scNle _- 1'= 120' Teel ' �-- SEE TO REMAIN a REM AITO REMAIN! I' OEEiI "A" 9� W REMAIN ✓'p,.L 1032 N409821E ' 4..., r 209' 2a3' B4 - - - i g�N�2t E .,, . , , ,. , .�! -153 38a I - _ W' "•y 10' e4• 17 i 16 1 • "� . -r� 4L "ti zy FF =56 FF 56 m 24 L PET -44 PEI d4 38' [OFF TO REMAIN 0'g T PEt =4¢ / TO REMAIN N, f 0 q B P I PE2 =34 PE2 34• PETSI4 (,/ �....� Iue SJ r. 2D9 2AY _ SEE GENERAL I se �.,. 511 .e _ 12 NOTEa L 41 275 �J. 228' ..w,__— '^e. F PEI =43' ].A -100' , I % PE2_3S e� N40J82fE 5]Y y. I ' 290 AA 70 o GusG,a5 w �s��'! .� iul u Io FF =s9 { .,.-:' H ✓- _ LA18' 11 FF s4 i �� :� IV NEMg1ry m R =42' PE s3 V� BB FF =95' II %i,' 9j� ,652 X a zs4� I 11 14 Z R-7, �J it TENTATIVE • • Ye MAP ®e 17438 E" FF _39` 4a u CURVE TABLE PE2 -47' P0R9;.ry A \`* ccess aFOrsn "" nrss �, °: "" IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT \Y • O V _r,_� PE2 34 _ Ie �— CURVE RADIUS t£NC1H SHEET 1 fie• F P' ,I (� BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA \NOIE 4 oa.R "'�&"'' aa.. ktrx °"�•� Prnsrm "ry WM sP�InN a c2 30.00• aG.GG' ) r ].>Y Si.'A° N1 v- FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES I 't a� ao G' 2).4D' ytJra 8T_9° p ,m � I ¢s' 14 67. 62.99• S 0 E FF459' PsT_ S.E Fl10N11NG ILPW LGi4 u' STT CS C8 C) 132.00• 18 00 18 4 .G6 01' 441• JS �J P1 u S 1 �%� PE sa <r c ncCFSS Ptah RC 'I`v Ba allB(K vu8ut PFNEStP'M' PN- `5NIAN cast s a. tD'° U&/C P[Df5 /R!W .w'm's L N Cb C9 .DO OS OB 21800 12). 5• 89.77' �9�Mavt > 1 XOfSIRLw _ -� e s> 0 NOTE 4 8' C19 15 f� T Jy I gyp' 2 IMp: 010 C 11111111 21800 1800 4030' 4 40' PEMSIF,ax CCC55 S .y.0 CLET ST. R__WT DLAGOWU.P ,,L .� PEMS7RI.w 1!P_- -_-NNN II�� -��11 PuBUt fft,CJC Psxsrvre.! KM6W,N+ Pfo[SlRlary IIRiIC a[OfsxW - �I.6�L. C Fna 68 � C12 1 . 22.01' ,Ess a� 51 •c• CtFSS \ �f RCCEA ccrss , t I CID 10.0 752' 6T'A'N'IRIDNfANALPARKINOStN1i' ��5 R IFr-g IS'✓ME AKPN{Y.%NG fletttE CIS 40. 1 .))' 8T.'CEMRY DRNE 9i_'E• a CoTCNM' P"mbnv ALONG Pm J>keOREERMO ' �-- SEE TO REMAIN a REM AITO REMAIN! I' OEEiI "A" 9� W REMAIN ✓'p,.L 1032 N409821E ' 4..., r 209' 2a3' B4 - - - i g�N�2t E .,, . , , ,. , .�! -153 38a I - _ W' "•y 10' e4• 17 i 16 1 • "� . -r� 4L "ti zy FF =56 FF 56 m 24 L PET -44 PEI d4 38' [OFF TO REMAIN 0'g T PEt =4¢ / TO REMAIN N, f 0 q B P I PE2 =34 PE2 34• PETSI4 (,/ �....� Iue SJ r. 2D9 2AY _ SEE GENERAL I se �.,. 511 .e _ 12 NOTEa L 41 275 �J. 228' ..w,__— '^e. F PEI =43' ].A -100' , I % PE2_3S e� N40J82fE 5]Y y. I ' 290 AA 70 o GusG,a5 w �s��'! .� iul u Io FF =s9 { .,.-:' H ✓- _ LA18' 11 FF s4 i �� :� IV NEMg1ry m R =42' PE s3 V� BB FF =95' II %i,' 9j� ,652 Ras y 1I 94 ° 32' 22 1 J 11 L 111 43 N45 E ,NO FS" 11 . 1 5R p. n " R.55 X a zs4� I 11 14 Z R-7, �J it TAIL 0. PE =57 L 10 _ R =45 Ras y 1I 94 ° 32' 22 1 J 11 L 111 43 N45 E ,NO FS" 11 . 1 5R p. n " R.55 PrvJW'9Ye 14 �J it l 1 3 FF _39` 4a u PE2 -47' ti 1 PE2-37 PE2 =3T }A II e mz PE, =44' PE2 34 oP SEE DETAIL 'E" b .., O SHEET 1 fie• SEE GENERAL(� Y t2 R 568 \NOIE 4 oa.R 23,' 173 r... \46 .. .133 - � x 12 LEGEND — DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE FLOW FF FINISHED FLOOR PE = PAD ELEVATION PEI = PAD ELEVATION WITH I LEVEL OF PE2 PAD ELEVA ➢ON WRH 2 LEVELS 01 TENTA`L E TRACT 80UNOARY PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED BNLOING PAD -- - PROPOSED GRADE CONTOUR __151 - K 3821E 1133 � - -- -- _ JAMBOREE ROAD `- RiW " P° A N�.4�36 p 1V 18 w ✓g' '24 ,1 3z 1/ a 3' _ 3'.5 \J - 'I 240 240' — V ' 7 L =6' ' 56' L 6 4 9% B 11 x Op ° A Ate! 103- 7 14 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH it l 1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17438 Al 4a u PA2011 -134 ti 1 PE2-37 FF =56' }A II e pE51GNED BY JA & EO PE, =44' PE2 34 V b .., na• . fie• '\ ,IP53 t2 R 568 23,' `sh C � x N o m,- I �I p ,m � I S FF459' PsT_ FF 59 PE2 -37' PEZI: PE2 =3➢' SEE GENERAL NOTE 4 __151 - K 3821E 1133 � - -- -- _ JAMBOREE ROAD `- RiW " P° A N�.4�36 p 1V 18 w ✓g' '24 ,1 3z 1/ a 3' _ 3'.5 \J - 'I 240 240' — V ' 7 L =6' ' 56' L 6 4 9% B 11 x Op ° A Ate! 103- 7 77 feel CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE N_ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17438 9 DRAWING N PA2011 -134 FFV 56' 2 OF 2 FF =56' PEI -44' DRAWN BY CS & EO pE51GNED BY JA & EO PE, =44' PE2 34 PE2 34' b .., na• . N. e N40'382YE 5>T , I s/ ,sae I L . 17,. IMi/Z".- UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: rF .:s,.', 4 Ti,47 F1 . -2EL P E' �F? 7 . 3 trvr :u. +72!60' 7O10fz M77 I '46y 600 0 X120 77 feel CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE N_ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17438 APN: 445 - 131 -02 & -03 UPTOWN NEWPORT DRAWING N PA2011 -134 2 OF 2 $GALE 1 " =60' DATE ,1/28/12 DRAWN BY CS & EO pE51GNED BY JA & EO City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 31 of 36 EXHIBIT D REQUIRED FINDINGS TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -005 In accordance with NBMC Section 15.40.030 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A (NBMC Chapter 15.30), Facts in Support of Finding` A -1, A traffic study, entitled Uptown Newport Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc., May 2012 and revised in November 2012, were prepared for the Project in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Appendix A). Finding: B. 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) (NBMC Section 15.40.030.B.21 can be made. Section 15.40.030.8.2 states: The project is a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plan with construction of all phases not anticipated 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 approval satisfies the provisions of subsections (B)(1)(a) or (B)(1)(b), and C, The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan are not made inconsistent by the impact of project trips (including circulation improvements 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 construct circulation improvement(s) such that., The term of the franchise per Section 2 of the Franchise Agreement ( "Agreement ") attached hereto as Exhibit A, Commercial Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement between the City of /Newport Beach and Ecology Auto Parts, Inc. is hereby adopted, approved and incorporated into this Ordinance by reference, shall commence at 12:01 a.m., on March 29, 2013 and expire on March 1, 2017. The franchise shall take effect on the date specified above provided that the grantee has filed written notice of acceptance in accordance with the requirement of Section 4 of this Ordinance. D. Franchise Fees (1) During the term of the Agreement, Franchisee shall pay to City franchise fees for the privilege of providing commercial solid waste handling services in the City of Newport Beach and use of public streets, right of ways, and places for such purposes. Fees shall be in the following amounts: Franchisee shall pay to the City 10.5% (ten and one -half percent) of the Franchisee's gross receipts. Franchise fee payments shall be paid quarterly and shall be computed and paid on the basis of paid receipts received by the Franchisee for all solid waste handling services provided by the Franchisee within the City. One -half of one percent (0.5 %) of the franchise fee shall be attributable to the maintenance and implementation of the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), and shall be separately accounted for, and used only for the costs stated in Public Revenue Code Section 41901 or any successor provisions. (2) Franchisee shall pay to the City Environmental Liability Fund, on a quarterly basis, 5.5% of gross receipts for all commercial solid waste handling services provided by the Franchisee in the City. Payment shall be made concurrently with the payment of the franchise fee and the filing of reports specified in the Agreement. E. Inclusion of Franchise Documents Franchisee shall comply with and shall be bound by all of the terms, provisions and conditions contained in the City Charter, this Ordinance, Chapter 12.63 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the Franchise Agreement. SECTION 4: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from and after the date of its adoption; provided, however, franchises granted by this Ordinance shall not become effective unless and until the grantee files written acceptance of the franchise with the City Clerk, and delivers to the City all bonds and insurance policies required to be furnished in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 12.63 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the Franchise Agreement. The written acceptance shall be in form 3 and substance as prescribed by the City Attorney and shall operate as an acceptance of each and every term, condition and limitation contained in this Ordinance, the Franchise Agreement, Article XIII of the City Charter, and Chapter 12.63 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The grantee shall file written acceptance of the franchise no later than ten (10) days after the adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION 5: CEQA Exemption The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that this Ordinance is categorically exempt under the California Code of Regulations Section 15301 and 15308 defined as "existing operations and facilities" and as "actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment' respectively. Use of the above exemption classifications are appropriate because this Ordinance does not change nor expand existing solid waste operations and facilities within the City. The Ordinance is also consistent with the goals of California State Assembly Bill 939, The California Solid Waste Management Act as well as the objectives of the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). SECTION 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional. 0 City Council Resolution No, 2013 -24 Page 32 of 36 (1) 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, (2) The benefits resulting from circulation improvements constructed or funded by, or contributions to the preparation or implementation of a traffic mitigation study made by, the project proponent outweigh the adverse impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (B)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse impacts 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 recommendations 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 impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that, if implemented, would fully 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; 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 outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on the circulation system. Facts in Support of Finding; B -1. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the Traffic Study, mitigation measures, and the conditions of approval, all of the findings for approval in Section 15.40.030.8.2 can be made. B -2. Phase 1 is projected to generate an additional 5,012 daily trips, 317 during the AM peak hour and 443 during the PM peak hour. At the project's build -out (Phase 2), the Project generates 8,286 daily trips, 542 during the AM peak hour and 727 during the PM peak hour. The Project would shift traffic patterns to and from the site as the Project involves a shift from office and industrial development to residential uses. The City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 33 of 36 Project will consist of primarily residential uses, which will have reverse traffic patterns from existing uses at the site. As the result, while the proposed project results in an overall increase in daily trips, there would be a reduction of trips on some intersection movements and an increase on others in each of the morning and evening peak hours. The net new trips to be added (or subtracted due to the shift from employment to residential) to the street system does not result in any significant impacts to the studied intersections and segments. B -3. The Project design provides for primary and secondary ingress and egress from Jamboree Road, but also includes a third access drive to and from Birch Street, utilizing a non - exclusive access easement established by an express grant of easement recorded in 1978. B -4. The proposed Project meets the requirements for a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plan as the Project is subject to a Development Agreement and conditions of approval that require the construction of, or contributions to, circulation improvements early in the development phasing program. 13-5. The complete Project is not anticipated to be completed within five years approval. The Traffic Study analyzed Phase 1, which is expected to be completed by 2018. Phase 2 of the Project is anticipated to commence in 2017 and be completed in 2021 or later, and therefore requires a separate traffic analysis at a later date prior to recordation of final maps or building permits for Phase 2, The Traffic Study found the Project would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase 1 Project trips at the study intersections. B -6. The Traffic Study and FEIR analyzed intersections projected to exceed the Level of Service ( "LOS "), which is a "D" standard except certain designated intersections within the airport area shared with the City of Irvine that permit LOS "E." 13-7. Intersection peak hour traffic conditions were evaluated for Year 2018 (existing plus growth plus committed projects) both without and with Phase 1 traffic. The Traffic Study found that the following intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service both without and with Project Phase 1: Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS in both peak hours. B -8. The DEIR and Traffic Study found the addition of Project traffic would not cause additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable LOS, and the Project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection. 13-9. The proposed Project does not result in an inconsistency between the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the General Plan by the impact of project trips (including circulation improvements 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 development included in the proposed B -10. Transportation and traffic impacts wo mitigation is required, City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 34 of 36 of the General Plan and Zoning Code. The Project is consistent with the General Plan. uld be mitigated to less than significant and no Finding: C. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with alt conditions of approval. Facts in Su000rt of Findin C -1. Concept plans depicting the recommended street improvements are included in the resolution of approval and conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map for the proposed Project. The Project also will be responsible for the payment of Fair Share fees in accordance with Chapter 15.32 that will be used to fund future planned improvements to the circulation system. Additionally, the Project will be required to pay any applicable fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 35 of 36 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -005 Exhibit E is available for review at the offices of Planning Division of Community Development and City Clerk or at http: / /newportbeachoa.gov TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Prepared by: Kimley °Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, California 92868 May, 2012 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................._._.... ..........- ,......,...........1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......... .................................. ..„ ... -. ........ ......,._....,..........,.,......... ,..,,....,.......... ...... I Existing Site Uses and Access ..................................................................................... ............................... i Proposed Site Uses and Access........ . . ....... ..... — ...... ......... ............. ....... ..... 3 STUDYMETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. ..............................3 StudyArea .................................................................................................................... ...... ........................3 AnalysisMethodology ....................................................................... ............................... ...,.8 PerformanceCriteria .................................................................................................... .............................10 Thresholdof Significance............................................................................................ .............................10 Cityof Newport Beach ............................................................................................ .............................10 Cityof Irvine ................................................--..............,,.........,...,,....,................... ....-.....,.,.........,.,,...11 Study Scenarios ... --- ..... ..... ... ............ --- ....... ,.................. ,............ ..,......,...,,,.,,....,., ..,,..,.,..,,...,............11 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ................................................................. .............................12 RoadwayCharacteristics ................ ............................. °° ............... ....... ................... ............................ ,12 ExistingTransit Service ................. ................_...._.....................,.... .. ..... .-, ..................... ...,......,......... .,....14 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................ .............................17 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ .............................17 Existing Intersection Analysis ... ............. .......... .... ............... ........ .. ... .... ................................ ......... .....,... . -17 PROJECTTRAFFIC ....................................................................................................... .............................21 TripGeneration ............................................................................................................ .............. .. .............21 Existing Conexant Development Trip Generation ................................................... .. .... .......................21 Proposed Project Trip Generation ............................................................................ ....................... .. ....21 Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................... ......................... ....25 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDIT IONS .................:.............................................. ..... ................. .......30 FUTURE CONDITIONS ..................................._..,,„.,,..,,.,..,........,.......... .... ........... ,.,,.., ,.....................-- .....34 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis— ...... ........... — ...... 34 TPO1% Analysis .................................................................................................... .............................34 Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project .................................................................... ... ..... ............... ......37 TPOAnalysis with Project .......................................................................................... ......... ... ............. ....37 Year 2018 TPO Analysis with Phase 1- ........ ............................ -- .......... .... -- ... -- .............. . ... --,40 Cumulative Conditions Analysis ................................................................................. .............................44 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project .......................................... ............................... ...49 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 ..................................................... ..................... ... .....49 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project ................................................. .............................55 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Full Project ............................................... ........ .... ... ..............55 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE,...,.......,........ .... ...... —.— .... .... .61 ANALYSIS OF STATE HIGHWAY FACILITIES ....................................................... ...................... .... . . .62 Intersections on State Highway Facilities .......................... ., ....... .......... .....,........ .,..,... .....,.,....,...,...... .. .... 62 TrafficImpact Criteria ................................................................................................. ....... ......................62 State Highway intersection Analysis...... .... ................. ........ .......... ................................... ...... -.64 ExistingConditions ................................................................................................. .................. ...........64 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project.. ............. ............ -- ..... ............ ........ ...... 64 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 ..................................................... .............................64 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project........ .............. — ......... .................... --- ..... --64 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Proposed Project ...................................... ...................... ... ....65 Freeway Mainline Analysis ................ ..... .. ....................... .......................................... .............................71 ExistingConditions ................................................................................................. .............................71 Existing Conditions with the Full Project.... ....... ...... - ....... ........................ .......................... ..... 74 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project..... ... -- ...... .......... ...... ........ .74 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I ..................................................... .............................74 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project.. ........ - ............................................... ................. .81 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project, .................... ............ ........ ....... .81 SITE ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION ........................................................... ................. .. ..........86 ExistingCirculation.... . ......... ............. .......... ....... .............. ........ ............ .... — ........ ............ .86 Phase1 Circulation ............ ...... ........ ....... ....... °-- ............... ,....„.- ..... ., ............. ... ................. ---- .... .......,86 Phase2 Circulation ...................................................................................................... ........... ............... . . .86 Access Easement to Birch Street ............................................................................. ......... ....................89 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ......................................................................................... .. ...........................91 ALTERNATIVETRAVEL MODES .............................................................................. ....... ......................92 PublicTransit ................................................................................................................ ........................... .93 Pedestrian.......,-„ ................. _.._............... ......... ............ ,......... ----. ........ ................. -- ,, ........ ---- ......... ..93 Bicycles............................................................................... .........._.....--- •--.,....... „ ...94 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................... .............................95 APPENDICES APPENDIX A— Traffic Data Collection Worksheets APPENDIX B — Intersection Analysis Worksheets B -1— Existing Conditions B -2 — Existing Plus Project Conditions B -3 — TPO Analysis without Project B -4 — TPO Analysis with Phase I Project B -5 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project B -6 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 B -7 — Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project B -8 — Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project APPENDIX C — Committed and Cumulative Project Information APPENDIX D — 1 % Analysis Worksheets — TPO Analysis APPENDIX E — Intersection Analysis Worksheets — State Highway Analysis E -1 —Existing Conditions E-2 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project E -3 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 E4 — Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project E -5 —Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project APPENDIX F — Freeway Mainline Analysis F -1 — Existing Conditions F -2 — Existing Conditions Plus Full Project F -3 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project F4 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I F -5 — Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project F -6 — Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project APPENDIX G — CMP Compliance APPENDIX H — City of Newport Beach Bike Plans LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 —Vicinity Map ................................................................................................... ..............................2 Figure2 -- Project Site Plan ..... ................................................_.................................. .., .............. ___ .... .......5 Figure3 —Phase I Site Plan .............................................................................................. .................,...,.......6 Figure4 — Study Intersections .......................................................................................... ..............................7 Figure 5 — Existing Transit Routes .................................................................................. .............................15 Figure 6 — Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control .......................................... .............................18 Figure 7 — Existing Peak Hour Traffic VoIumes ............................................................. .............................19 Figure 8 — Trip Distribution Assumptions for Existing Development ............................ .............................26 Figure 9 — Trip Distribution Assumptions for Uptown Newport Project ........................ .............................27 Figure 10 — Phase I Project-Related Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................. .............................28 Figure 11 —Phase 2 (Full Project) Project - Related Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............ .............................29 Figure 12 -- Existing plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................... .............................31 Figure 13 — Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project Peak Hour Traffic Vol umes ...... .............................35 Figure 14 — Year 2018 TPO Analysis with Phase 1 Peak hour Traffic Volumes.. ...°- .. .............................41 Figure 15 -, Location of Cumulative Projects .................................................................. .............................47 Figure 16 -- Cumulative Projects .Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................ .............................48 Figure 17 —Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .....................50 Figure 18 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I Peak Hour Volumes....,....— ...... ... _____52 Figure 19 —Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.. ...... _ ...... __56 Figure 20 -- Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project Peak Hour Volumes .........................58 Figure 21 —Phase 1 Circulation Plan ............................................................................... .............................87 Figure 22 —Phase 2 Circulation Plan ... ............................... ....... ____ ....... ................. ,......... ... .... .... ..... —88 Figure 23 — Traffic Volumes at the Project Driveways ................................................... .............................90 LIST OF TA13LES Table l~ Summary ofIntersection Operations - Conditions ................. ..... ...... ^............ ... .. ...... 2A Table 2- Summary mƒ Phase I Trip Generation ... .~ .... .......... ...'...~....~-~~~'.~.~-..23 Table 3- Summary nf Full Project Trip (3eoerz6va ... ^.~................... ..-~..-..24 Table 4~ Summary ofIntersection Operation, - Existing Plus Project Conditions ..... ....~~...................... 32 Table 5- Summary vf Committed y jccts,~.........._~...-........-...~..".°^.~...'-'36 Table 6- Summary of I% Analysis -^13Y) Analysis .......... ................... ____ ........................ .-........ ..... 3x Table ?~ Summary vf Intersection Operations - Year 2V18T9() Analysis vidxxt Project ,~~..~~...~ ........ ]9 Table &- Summary of Intersection Operations ~ Year 20l8 T}`{} Analysis with Phase ....... __42 Table - Summary *fCumulative .... ........... ..~.~. ... ^, .................. .... ~....^......_ ...... .....45 Table lo- Summary of Cumulative Project,% Trip Generation ..... .......... ........... ................. ...... ............... -..... 46 Table 1l- Summary of CuuJ6iom .~...jl Table l2- Summary mfIntersection Operation - Year ]0lK Cumulative Conditions with Phase l ........... .._53 Table \3~^ Summary of Intersection Operations - Year 282l Cumulative Conditions without rsvoot ... . .... ~5? Table l4~ Summary nf Intersection Operation ~ Year 20Zl Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project- ... ._S9 Table i5- Summary of State Highway Intersection Operations ~ Existing Conditions ...... ... -` ... ____ ........ -.66 Table 16 - Surnmary of State Highway Intersection Operation - Year 20 18 Cumulative without Project. ...... ...67 Table l?^- Summary nf State Highway Intersection Operation ~ Year 20lS Cumulative with Phase 1- .~. .......6% Table 18 Summary of State Highway Intersection Operation - Year 2021 Cumulative without Project ... _ .....�69 Table l9-Snmaoug/ufState Highway Intersection Operation ~ Year lQ2l Cumulative with the Full Project ...78 Table %V- Summary of Freeway Mainline Operation for 14A5 Existing Conditions -.~~.~~~~.~72 Tmkln%l - Q000umryuf Freeway Mainline Operation for SR-73 Freeway ~ Existing Conditions ......... . ....... .7] Table %2- Summary nf Freeway Mainline for l+105- Existing Conditions Plus Full Project ........ .,. .............. 5 Yu6lI3~ Summary of Freeway Mainline for Sll-73- Existing Conditions Plus Full yj:ut~^~ ... . ............ 6 Tuhl24-8uonnaryofFre*w«yMuiu}io*forI~405~Yeur%0l8Comulutive Conditions without Project ...�77 Table 25~ Summary nf Freeway Mainline for SQ~?3- Year 2Al8 Cumulative Conditions without Project .... .76 Table 26- Summary of Freeway Mainline for {435- Year I#l& Cumulative Conditions with Phase ....79 Table %7~ Summary of Freeway Mainline for 3R-73- Year 201% Cumulative Conditions with Phase l...... ...00 Table 28~ Summary nfFreeway Mainline for l~405- Year %02l Cumulative Conditions without Project ......... 82 Table 29~ Summary of Freeway Mainline for DD-?3~Year 2n%1 Cumulative Conditions without Project.. .....A3 Table 3A- Summary uf Freeway Mainline for l^4O5- Year 202i Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project &4 Table 3l~ Summary vf Freeway Mainline for 8R-73-Year 2o2l Cumulative Conditions with Full Project ..~85 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT INTRODUCTION This traffic impact analysis has been prepared to provide an evaluation of the traffic- related impacts associated with the proposed Uptown Newport Project. This report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic impact study requirements, County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements, and in support of the environmental documentation for the project, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Uptown Newport Project site is located at the southwest corner t of Jamboree Road and Birch Street in the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach, A vicinity map is provided on Figure 1. The project site occupies 25 acres within the larger Koll Center development. Existing Site Uses and Access The project site consists of two adjoining rectangular areas. The smaller rectangular area is approximately 7 acres, and is currently developed as surface parking, The larger rectangular portion is an 18 -acre area along Jamboree Road, and is currently developed with two buildings. 4311 Jamboree Road (known as the "Half Dome Building") is a one -story building with 115,375 square feet of office use and 11,300 square feet of light industrial use. 4321 Jamboree Road (known as the "Jazz Building) is a four -story building with 52,947 square feet of supporting office use and 258,505 square feet of industrial use. Local access to the project site is currently provided by two driveways on Jamboree Road, and one driveway on Birch Street via an access easement through the adjoining property. The access onto Jamboree Road consists of a four -way signalized intersection at Jamboree Road and Fairchild Drive, and a stop - controlled driveway located approximately 750 feet north of the signalized intersection. The driveway on Birch Street is a stop- controlled driveway located 560 feet to the west of the signalized intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street. " As shown on Figure 1, the streets adjacent to the project site are oriented on a diagonal. For purposes of this report, Jamboree Road is considered to be the north -south street, and Birch Street is considered to be the east -west street. Uptown Newport Project - I - Kimley -Ilom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 _2. a a W �z (g U LL > U Proposed Site Uses and Access With the proposed development, the existing uses would be demolished and replaced with 1,244 residential units and 11,500 square feet of commercial development. The project will also include two small (approximately 1 acre each) on -site parks. A copy of the project site plan is provided on Figure 2. This report provides an analysis of two project phases: Phase 1, consisting of 680 residential units and 11,500 square feet of commercial; and Phase 2, which would be development of the full project. A copy of the Phase I site plan is provided on Figure 3. With the proposed development, the project would take access via two access points on Jamboree Road for Phase 1, and two access points on Jamboree Road and the existing access on Birch Street (via an access moment) for Phase 2. STUDY METHODOLOGY Study Area The traffic impact analysis for the Uptown Newport project will evaluate morning and evening peak hour operations at the following 43 existing intersections, consisting of a combination of intersections in the City of Newport Beach and the adjoining City of Irvine, No. Intersection City` Control 1 MacArthurBoulevard/Main Street Irvine Signalized 2 MacArthur Boulevard/1 -405 NB Ramps Irvine Signalized 3 MacArthur Boulevard/ 1-405 SB Ramps Irvine Signalized 4 MacArthur Boulevard/MichelsonDrive Irvine Signalized 5 MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive Irvine Signalized 6 MacArthur Boulevard/Birch Street Newport Beach Signalized 7 MacArthur Boulevard/Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach Signalized 8 MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road Newport Beach Signalized 9 MacArthur Boulevard/Fairchild Road Irvine Signalized 10 MacArthur Boulevard NB Ramp/University Drive Irvine Signalized I 1 MacArthur Boulevard SB Ramp/University Drive Newport Beach Signalized 12 Von Karman Avenue/Main Street Irvine Signalized 13 Von Karman Avenue/Michelson Drive Irvine Signalized 14 Von Karman Avenue/Dupont Drive Irvine Signalized 15 Von Karman Avenue /Campus Drive Irvine Signalized 16 Von Karman Avenue/Birch Street Newport Beach Signalized 17 Teller Avenue /Campus Drive Irvine Signalized 18 Teller Avenue/Birch Street Newport Beach Stop Controlled 19 Jamboree Road/Main Street Irvine Signalized 20 Jamboree Road/1 -405 NB Ramps Irvine Signalized 21 Jamboree Road/1.405 SB Ramps Irvine Signalized U p t o w n Newport P r o j e c t - 3 - Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 No. Intersection City' Control 22 Jamboree Road/Michelson Drive Irvine Signalized 23 Jamboree Road/Dupont Drive Irvine Signalized 24 Jamboree Road/Campus Drive Irvine Signalized 25 Jamboree Road/Bitch Street Irvine Signalized 26 Jamboree Road/Fairchild Road Irvine Signalized 27 Jamboree Road/Bristol Street N Newport Beach Signalized 28 Jamboree Road(Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signalized 29 Jamboree Road/Bayview Way Newport Beach Signalized 30 Jamboree RoadfUniversity Drive Newport Beach Signalized 31 Carlson Avenue/MicheIson Drive Irvine Signalized 32 Carlson Avenue /Bristol Street N Irvine Signalized 33 Harvard Avenue/Bristol Street S Irvine Signalized 34 Campus Drive/Bristol Street N Newport Beach Signalized 35 Birch Street/Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signalized 36 Irvine Avenue/Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signalized 37 Birch Street/Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signalized 38 Bayview Place/Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signalized 39 Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive Newport Beach Signalized 40 University Drive /Campus Drive Irvine Signalized 41 Mesa Road/University Drive Irvine Signalized 42 California Avenue/University Drive Irvine Signalized 43 Site Driveway/Birch Street Newport Beach Stop Controlled For "shared" intersections on the boundary between the two cities, the city listed indicates the city that maintains and controls the signal. The study area and study intersection list reflect input received from the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The location of the study intersections is shown on .Figure 4. Of the 43 study intersections, 26 are controlled by the City of Irvine and 17 are controlled by the City of Newport Beach. Each intersection has been analyzed using the methodology and parameters employed by the city in which the intersection is located. For "shared" intersections on the city boundary, the 'intersection analysis is based on the methodology used by the City that maintains and controls the signal. A discussion of the analysis methodology and significance criteria for each city is provided in the next section. Of the 43 study intersections, four intersections are located on State highways, and are therefore controlled by Cattrans. A separate analysis of the State highway intersections using the analysis methodology required by Caltrans for State facilities is provided in a separate section of this report. Uptown Newport Project -4- KimleyHom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 :401AR 1 , -5- (!i) NOT TO SCALE 1 12m" Kimisy —Horn and Awmiatss, inc. NOT TO SCALE and Associates, Inc. T 3 u n C u 0 U w W E Analysis Methodology Intersection analysis for all signalized intersections has been conducted using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which is the methodology utilized by both the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine, as well as the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). (Intersections that are located at a State Highway intersection are also analyzed in accordance with Caltrans requirements, using a separate methodology, as discussed later in this report.) The ICU methodology provides a comparison of the theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the number of vehicles actually passing through that intersection during any given hour. The ICU calculation assumes an hourly per -lane capacity for each Iane through the intersection, and a clearance factor to account for the effect of yellow and red signal phases. Variations in analysis input parameters between the agencies have been accounted for in the analysis. The following presents the ICU parameters for each of the cities. ICU Parameter Saturation Flow Rate / Lane Capacity Clearance Interval Right- turn -on -red allowed' ATMS Credit 2 Critical Movement 1 ICU calculation Ciry of Newport Beach 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) 0 NA NA 3 decimals for each critical movement, summed and City of Irvine 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) .05 of cycle length Yes .05 2 decimals for each critical movement ' Right - turn-on-red is allowed from exclusive right -rum lanes. For the City of Irvine, "unofficial" right -turn lanes (known as a de facto right -turn lane) are assumed in the ICU calculation if lq feet of travel lane exists from lane stripe to edge of roadway, and curbside parking is prohibited during peak periods. ' ATMS is an advanced traffic signal management system employed by the City of Irvine to allow them to control signal operations in real -time response to traffic conditions at the intersection. Intersections with the ATMS equipment installed are given a 5% capacity credit. The ATMS credit is not applied to intersections located within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). One study intersection (University Drive at Campus Drive) Intersection analysis for unsignalized intersections has been conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, which returns a delay value, expressed in terms of the average seconds of delay per vehicle. Operating conditions for both ICU and HCM methodologies are expressed in terms of "Level of Service" which is also referred to by its acronym, LOS. The ICU calculation returns a volume -to- capacity (V1C) ratio that translates into a corresponding Level of Service, ranging from LOS "A ", representing uncongested, free-flowing conditions, to LOS "F ", representing congested, over - capacity conditions. The HCM methodology returns a delay value, expressed in terms of the average seconds of delay per vehicle, which also corresponds to a Level of Service measure. A summary description of each Level of Service and the corresponding V1C ratio or delay is provided on the following chart, Uptown Newport Project - 8 - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study —DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Signalized: Unsignalized: Level of ICU HCM i Description Service V/C Ratio Delay (see) _ EXCELLENT - No vehicle warts longer than one red light, and A 0.00-0,60 5I4 no approach phase is fully used. VERY GOOD - An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; B 4.61 - 030 > 10 and < 15 drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. GOOD - Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more C 0.7I - 0.80 > 15 and <25 than one red light; back -ups may develop behind turning vehicles. _ FAIR - Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush D 0.81-0,90 > 25 and _< 35 hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive back -ups, POOR - Represents the most vehicles that the intersection E 0.91-1.00 > 35 and <_ 50 approaches can accommodate; may be tang lines of waiting l vehicles through several signal cycles. T FAILURE- Back -ups from nearby locations or on cross streets € may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the :jF > i .00 > 54 intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Uptown Newport Project .9- Kimley -Born and Associates, Inc. Traffic impact Study - DRAFT- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 Performance Criteria 'The City of Newport Beach target Level of Service (LOS) for peak hour operation of signalized intersections is LOS "D" or better, except for designated intersections within the airport area shared with the City of Irvine, where LOS "E" is acceptable. In the City of Irvine, the target Level of Service is LOS "D ", except where the intersection is located in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) or the Irvine Spectrum area. For these intersections, the target Level of Service is "E" The following study intersections are located in the Irvine Business Complex: NO- Intersection I. MacArthur Boulevard at Main Street 2. MacArthur Boulevard at 1 -405 Northbound Ramps 3. MacArthur Boulevard at 1 -405 Southhound Ramps 4. MacArthur Boulevard at Michelson Drive 5. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive 8. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road 9, MacArthur Boulevard at Fairchild Road 12. Von carman Avenue at Main Street. 13, Von Kalman Avenue at Michelson Drive 14, Von Kerman Avenue at Dupont Drive 15. Von Kerman Avenue at Campus hive 17. Teller Avenue at Campus Drive 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street 20. Jamboree Road a I405 Northbound Ramps 21, Jamboree Road at 1405 Southbound Ramps 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive 23. Jamboree Road at Dupont Drive 24. Jamboree Road at Campus Drive 26. Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road 31. Carlson Avenue at Michelson Drive 31 Carlson Avenue at Campus Drive Threshold of Significance City of Newport Beach To determine whether or not the addition of project - generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the following threshold of significance: A significant impact would occur when the addition of project - generated trips causes the Level of Service at a study intersection to deteriorate from acceptable (LOS "D ", except for intersections on a CMP facility, and designated intersections in the Airport Area, where LOS "E" is acceptable) to a deficient Level of Service. Uptown Newport Project -10- Kunley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -- DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 • A significant impact would occur when the addition of project - generated trips increases the ICU at a study intersection by one percent or more (vie increases by 0.010 or more), worsening a projected baseline condition of LOS "E" or "F ". For unsignalized intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service, a signal warrant analysis will be conducted to determine if a signal is warranted. The signal warrant analysis will be conducted according to the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Warrant 3 - Peak Hour warrant parameters, using the peak hour intersection volumes. CQXX Irvine To determine whether or not the addition of project - generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Irvine has adopted the following threshold of significance: • A significant impact would occur when the intersection exceeds the acceptable Level of Service (LOS "D" except if located in the IBC, where LOS "E" is acceptable) in the baseline condition and the impact of the development is greater than or equal to two percent (v /c increase by 0.02 or more), or; The project increases the ICU by one percent or more (vIc increases by 0.01 or more) at a study intersection causing it to become deficient, Should a significant impact occur, project mitigation would be required to bring the intersection back to baseline conditions, at a minimum. Study Scenarios Each of the study intersections has been analyzed for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions • Existing Plus Project Conditions • TPO Analysis: Year 2018 with Committed Projects without Project • TPO Analysis: Year 2018 with Committed Projects with Phase I • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects with Phase I • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects with Pull Project Uptown Newport Project -It- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Roadway Characteristics Regional access to the project site is provided by the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73), located less than one mile to the south of the project area, and by the San Diego Freeway (1 -405) located less than 1.5 miles north of the project area. The proposed development would take access to the surrounding street system via connections to Jamboree Road for Phasc 1 and connections to Jamboree Road and to Birch Street for Phase 2. Birch Street is a four -lane undivided roadway, designated as a Secondary Arterial on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element, Birch Street extends in a north -south direction from south of SR: 73 to MacArthur Boulevard, and then turns and extends in an east -west direction from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road. Birch Street is divided by a painted median, and on -street parking is prohibited in the vicinity of the project. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Bristol Street North is part of the Bristol Street couplet that runs along either side of State Route 73 (SR -73). Bristol Street North is a four -lane one -way arterial that extends from Jamboree Road in a northwest direction north of and parallel to SR -73. It crosses over SR -73 and connects with Bristol Street at Santa Ana Avenuellkedhill Avenue, Bristol Street is classified as a Primary Arterial in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. Bristol Street South is the southbound portion of the Bristol Street couplet. Bristol Street South is a four -lane one -way arterial that extends from Santa Ana AvenuelRedhill Avenue to Jamboree Road in a southeast direction south of and parallel to SR -73. Cam thus Drive is a four -lane divided arterial that extends north -south between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard then turns and extends as a four -lane undivided arterial in an east -west orientation between MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive. Class lI bike lanes are provided on both sides of the street along Campus Drive. The posted speed limit on Campus Drive ranges from 45 mph to 50 mph within the study area. Campus Drive is designated on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element as a Major Arterial between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard, and as a Secondary Arterial between MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive. The Corona del Mar_Freewa W -73) is a seven- to eight -lane divided freeway providing regional access to and through the project area. The Corona del Mar Freeway starts at the San Diego Freeway (1405) and extends southeast just beyond University Drive, where it becomes the San Joaquin Hilts Transportation Corridor. SR -73 has four travel lanes in the northbound direction, and transitions from four to three travel lanes in the southbound direction east of Bristol Street. Uptown Newport Project -12- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - -DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 Dupont Drive is a four -lane divided east -west arterial in the City of Irvine that extends from north of Michelson Drive, across Von Karman Avenue to just east of Jamboree Road. Dupont Drive is divided by a painted median and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph to the west, and 40 mph to the east of Von Karman Avenue. Fairchild Road is a four -lane collector in the City of Irvine that extends from Jamboree Road to McArthur Boulevard, and provides access to the Centerpointe office development, located across Jamboree Road from the Koll Center development. Fairchild Road intersects with Jamboree Road and aligns with the existing signalized driveway that provides access to the existing uses on the Uptown Newport Project site. Fairchild Road is divided by a painted median, Jamboree Road is a six -lane to eight -lane divided arterial that extends through both Irvine and Newport Beach in a north -south direction, Within the Newport Beach city limits, Jamboree Road is mainly a six -lane divided arterial with three lanes in each direction, with the exception of four southbound travel lanes between Birch Street and Fairchild Road. Jamboree Road transitions into an eight -lane arterial north of the Newport Beach city limits. Jamboree Road is divided by a raised landscaped median and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Jamboree Road is classified as a Major arterial in both cities' Circulation Elements, Maip Street is a six -lane divided east -west arterial in the City of Irvine, located approximately a quarter -mile north of the I -405 Freeway. Main Street is divided by a raised landscaped median and has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Main Street is designated as a Major arterial on the City of Irvine Circulation Element. MacArthur Boulevard is a six - to eight -lane divided arterial that extends through the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. MacArthur Boulevard is divided by a raised or painted median and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. MacArthur Boulevard is classified as a Major arterial in both cities' Circulation Elements. Michelson Drive is a four -lane divided east -west arterial in the City of Irvine, located approximately one-third mile south of the I -405 Freeway. Michelson Drive is divided by a painted median and has a posted speed limit of 45 mph to the west, and 50 mph to the east of Jamboree Road. T'hc San Diego Freeway (I 405) is a twelve -lane freeway through the study area, providing regional access to the vicinity via interchanges at McArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. A carpool lane is provided in both the northbound and southbound directions. Univers Drive is a four -lane to six-lane divided arterial. University Drive extends eastward from Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach across the SR -73 into the City of Irvine, and through the University of California Irvine (UCI). University Drive transitions from four to six lanes at the SR -73 southbound ramps. University Drive is divided by a raised landscaped median and has a posted speed limit of 45 mph within the City of Newport Beach limits. University Drive is classified as a Primary on Uptown Newport Project -13 - Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT" — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION inlay, 2012 the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element and a Major arterial on the City of Irvine Circulation Element_ Von Karman Avenue is a four -lane divided north -south Primary Arterial that starts at MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, and extends northward into the City of Irvine. Von Karman Avenue is divided by a painted median and has a posted speed limit of 40 to 45 mph. Von Karman Avenue is classified as a Primary on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element On the City of Irvine Circulation Element, Von Karman Avenue is classified as a Secondary Highway between Campus Drive and Michelson Drive and as a Major Highway north of Michelson Drive. Existing Transit Service Figure 5 illustrates the bus routes currently operated by OCTA through the study area in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The following OCTA routes serve the project site and vicinity. OCTA Ronde 59 operates between the City of Anaheim and the City of Irvine via Kraemer Boulevard/Glassell Strect/Grand Avenue and Von Karman Avenue, Route 59 starts at Kraemer and La Palma in Anaheim and proceeds through the cities of Orange, Santa Ana and Tustin, then through the City of Irvine to the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The Route 59 stop closest to the project site is at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 59 operates in full route mode on weekdays from 4:30 AM to 11 :30 PM with 20- to 35- minute headways. On Saturdays, Route 59 does not offer service to UCI; it only operates to Pullman Street and Dyer Road from 6:50 AM to 11:30 PM, with 65- minute headways. Route 59 does not currently operate on Sundays. OCTA Route 76 operates between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Newport Beach via Talbert Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard. Route 76 starts at Talbert and Beach in Huntington Beach, and travels through the cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana and Irvine to Newport Beach, where it turns around at the Newport Transportation Center, The Route 76 stop closest to the project site is at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Route 76 operates on weekdays only, from 4.55 AM to 11:10 PM with 45- minute to 1 -hour headways, OCTA Route 178 operates between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Irvine via Adams Avenue, Birch Street, and Campus Drive. Route 178 starts at Goldenwest Street and Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach and heads east through the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to UCI in the City of Leine. The Route 178 stop closest the site is located at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 178 operates in full -route mode on weekdays from 5:50 AM to 10:50 PM with 45- minute to 1 -hour headways. On Saturdays, Route 178 does not offer service to UCI, it operates only to the Orange County Fairgrounds from 8 :20 AM to 4:20 PM with 45- minute headways, Route 178 does not operate on Sundays. Uptown Newport Project -14- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT— NOT FOR PUBLIC DIS'T'RIBUTION May, 201, 2 -15- OCTA Route 212 provides express route service between John Wayne Airport and San Juan Capistrano via the San Diego Freeway (1 -405). Route 212 starts at John Wayne Airport and continues south on the 1-405 Freeway to San Juan Capistrano, where it turns around at the Junipem Serra Park - and -Ride, The Route 178 stop closest the site is located at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 212 operates on weekdays only, and in the northbound direction only in the morning — from 5:50 to 7:30 AM; and in the southbound direction only in the evening — from 4:00 to 6:30 PM, OCTA Route 213 operates between the Park - and -Ride in Brea and UCI via Brea Boulevard, Chapman Avenue, SR -55 Freeway, Alton Parkway, Jamboree Road, Main Street, Von Kannan Avenue, Michelson Drive, and Harvard Avenue. Major destinations along the route include Brea Mall, Fullerton Transportation Center, the Village at Orange, and UCI. Route 213 operates on weekdays only, and in the southbound direction only in the morning — from 5:22 to 7:58 AM; and in the northbound direction only in the evening — from 4:03 to 6:58 PM. OCTA Route 472 provides Metrolink feeder route service for the Tustin Metrolink Station on Jamboree Road. Route 472 starts at the Tustin Metrolink Station and travels through the City of Irvine where it turns around at the Food and Drug Administration building on Fairchild Road, across Jamboree Road from the project site. The Route 472 stop closest to the site is located at the corner of Fairchild Road and Jamboree Road. Route 472 operates on weekdays only, and in the southbound direction only in the morning — from 6:10 to 9:00 AM; and in the northbound direction only in the evening — from 3:30 to 5:20 PM. Uptown Newport Project -16- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing Traffic Volumes Field observations of all study intersections were conducted to document the number of through and tuming lanes, traffic control, and other existing traffic conditions at each intersection. Existing lane configurations and intersection traffic controls at the study intersections are shown on Figure 6. Morning and evening peak hour intersection movement counts in this study were collected at the study intersections between March, 2010 and November, 2611. Existing peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 7. Copies of peak hour traffic data collection sheets are provided in Append&A, Existing Intersection Analysis Peak hour intersection analysis was conducted for the signalized study intersections using the applicable intersection analysis methodology and parameters for each city, as discussed previously in this report. Unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the IICM methodology for unsignalized intersections. Table 1 summarizes existing AM and PM peak hour intersection operations. Review of Table 1. indicates that all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" for all intersections, except LOS "E" for intersections in the IBC area and CMP intersections) in both peak- hours. Intersection Level of Service worksbeets are provided in Appendix B. Uptown Newport Project -17- Kimley -horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 � c 0 � m � °aE mg °cr E� c ecgrc�?o m mm Tim o S ms w e n z�U aKCii�Yii t� L = lttr ltf 17(r f(( ftr m m 1,i r ltis or -1 = Tttfr H� titt(a Tit t( 1F U — llttr e litr S Jiu of AIL '� tlf� $ g r if( 8 LL= lAr if llF s Jill =° ALLe ~� J{l� JAIL Jul m fttr stir stir LL� Tor m tfttr JJLL JAla Ill JII l EP a3 `L JAIL JW L � 1IL JAIL e� A{ =g =ng x liti LL vffr lftr LL=4 Ttf -ir 141trr J Q z O V U W LL F ® F Q k W z 0 z F tO z s wZ �x U. W o ;r 3G E ��Q$ °Q�'OB ZZUQ8 I� x I K ��Lmron 6� W U W 0 wze� W 0. n� 70) C4 y� 4. UJ t t µd r bBiM -s 1 g �s ig mow-. T } �g -y S -' �m 3 gr $k� W� ¢i fir` d11 55 ffi �"k `srm � sk0 _ dq@ di 4 a -l2'XY wk, � I d S" �raK.w. $ s�_ .-49ue }S ggr R y p Ham+ £Y "611HI s ��l��< Al � a ` IV s� L� ° ®�' ads t� S u imma5 Et gf �5Q t r "s i t w t QQggt �m ro (wnl.y .iQ MN['1 1r � �..�3� R 0 J 4 rk 1°"�Li a J 4' -"°"°u � J1 rm�s gun ¢ti io ko nssu;,.i -. wum if sp myrwr -.5 ure�rfu @t@f �a m imnn -. gt�npGpt -' Iws� -. s ,g, a Y mem 1 t A. g o„s ti v F — t r r �, W U W 0 wze� W 0. n� 70) C4 y� 4. UJ TABLE I UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PMPeakHour ICU/ Dela LOS 1ICU/1)eIav1 LOS Blvd/Main St a S OA9 A 0.65 B MacArthur Blvd/I -405 NB Ramps a. S 0.81 D 0.72 C MacATthur Blvd/I.405 SB Ramps a S 0.59 A 0.65 B F5 4MacArthur MacArthur Blvdi'Michelson Dr a S 0.68 B 0.65 B MacArthur Blvd/Campus Dr a S 0.48 A 0.60 A MacArthur BlvdBlrch St S 0.34 A 0.46 A MacArthur Blvd/Von Karmen Ave S 0.54 A 0.44 A 8 IMacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Rd a. S 0.59 A 0.67 B BlvdtFairchiid Rd a S 0.71 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- rantplUniversity Dr S 0.44 A 0.54 A MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramputUraversity Dr S 0.38 A 0,32 A r12ur Von Karman Ave/Main St a S 0.64 B 0.70 B Von Karmen Ave/Michelson Dr a S 0.44 A 0.64 B Von Karmen AvcVDupom Dr a S 0.34 A 0.41 A Von Kerman Ave/Campus Dr a S 0.47 A 0.59 A 16 Von Karmen Ave/Birch St S 0.29 A 0.35 A 17 Teller Ave/Campas Dr a S 0.27 A 0.41 A 18 Teller Ave/Rirch St U 12,10 B 1150 B 19 Jamboree Rd/Main St a S 0.70 B 0.61 B 20 Jamboree Rd/I.405 NB Ramps A-h S 0.64 B 0.62 B 21 Jamboree Rdt1-405 SB Ramps a- S 018 D 1 0.81 D 22 Jamboree R&Michulson Dr a S 0.61 B 0.68 B 23 Jamboree Rd/Dupont Dr " S 0.61 B 0.63 B 24 Jamboree Rd/Campus Dr a S 0.67 B 0.63 B 25 - Jamboree Rd/Birch St S 0,46 A 0.48 A 26 Jamboree Rd/Fairchild Rd a S 0.65 B 0.63 B 27 Jamboree Rd/Bristol StNorth S 0.29 A 0.46 A, 28 Jamboree Rd/Brisml St South S 0.45 A 0.52 A 29 Jamboree Rd/Bayview Way S 0.35 A 0.39 A 30 Jamboree Rd/University Dr S 0.56 A 0.52 A 31 Carlson Ave/Michelson Dr a S 1 0.48 A 1 0.60 A 32 Carlson Ave/Campus Dr a S 0.39 A 0.72 C 33 Harvard Ave/Michelson Dr S 0.65 B 0 77 C 34 Campus DhBristol St North S OAS A 0.71 C 35 Birch St/Bristol St North S - 0.54 A 0.56 A 36 Campus Dr /Bristol St South S 0.59 A 0.48 A 37 Birch St/Bristol St South S 0.39 A 0,41 A 38 Bayview PI/Bristol St South S 0.40 A 0.49 A 39 Irvine Ave/Mesa Dr S 032 A A 40 University Drtismpus Dr S 0.70 B 41 Mesand/UniversityDr S 0.59 A a0,73C B 42 C,atifemiaAvettJniversttyDr S O.SB A B 43 Birch SUDrivewa U 8.80 A B Notes: a= Irterwton is ioeazed wdhin ttx tnioc Htrsiueu Cui*sx Wnsul i n At" (LOS E Acceptable) b= Orange County Congestion Manngemtmt Program (CMP) intersection (JAS E Aeoepubie) S = Signalized, U= llasig.aiized Rata values indicate intersections opratingtn an unnoopuible LO& tnte:seUV}n operatina is et cn.d in avarage seconds of May per vcbicln during the peek hour fur unsigualized intesections using HCM 2000 Methodoln and is "Pressed in voluma44 apacuy (v /e for si alved intersections using ICU Met no Logy. Uptown Newport Project -20- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 PROJECT TRAFFIC Trip Generation Existing Conexant Development Trip Generation The project site is currently occupied by two buildings: 4311 Jamboree, with 115,375 square feet of office use and 11,300 square feet of light industrial use; and 4321 Jamboree, with 52,447 square feet of office space and 258,505 square feet of industrial use. Since these two buildings will be removed to make way for the proposed Uptown Newport Project, the trips currently generated at the site driveways by this existing development will be deducted from the trips to be generated by the proposed project uses. For the Phase 1 Project, only the 4311 Jamboree office building will be removed. For Phase 2 (the Full Project), both buildings will be removed. Existing driveway counts were used to determine the trip credit to be applied for this traffic impact analysis. (See footnote #4 on Tables 2 and 3.) Proposed Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were developed using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Gen r 'on (8h Edition) publication. The proposed project components and trip generation estimates for the Uptown Newport Project are as follows: Phase 1: • Multi- Family Residential — 680 dwelling units. The project may include a variety of multi- family residential product types, e.g.: condominium, apartment, townhomes, etc, For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment' are applied to all 1,244 residential units. • Commercial (Retail R Restaurant) — 11,500 square feet, consisting of 5,500 square feet of specialty retail use and 6,000 square feet of quality restaurant. • A 10% reduction in the trips for the commercial development was applied to account for pass - by trips, as directed by City of Newport Beach staff. • Trip generation estimates for Phase 1, including trip credits for the existing development to be removed and adding the new trips for the proposed Phase l project, are shown on Table 2. Phase 2: Multi - Family Residential Units — 1,244 units. The project may include a variety of multi- family residential product types, e.g.: condominium, apartment, townhomes, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment' are applied to all 1,244 residential units. Uptown Newport project -21- Kimley -Flom and Associates, Inc, Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT— NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 • Commercial (Retail 8c Restaurant) - 11,500 square feet, consisting of 5,500 square feet of specialty retail use and 6,000 square feet of quality restaurant. • A 10% reduction in the trips for the commercial development was applied to account for pass- - by trips, as directed by City of Newport Beach staff. • Trip generation estimates for the entire Uptown Newport project, including trip credits for removing the entire existing development on the site and adding the new trips for the entire Uptown Newport project are shown on Table 3. Review of the trip generation estimates for the existing office and industrial development on the site, compared to the proposed project reveals that the proposed development will result in a shift of traffic patterns to and from the site. The traffic patterns for the existing office and industrial development are typical of employment uses, with a heavier traffic flow toward the employment uses (inbound) in the morning peak hour, and heavier traffic flow away from the site (outbound) in the evening peak hour. The proposed Uptown Newport Project would consist of primarily residential uses, which would have the reverse traffic patterns - heavier traffic flow outbound from the residential uses in the morning peak hour, and heavier traffic flow inbound toward the site in the evening peak hour. As a result, while the proposed project will result in an overall increase in dainty trips, there will be a reduction of trips on some intersection movements and an increase on others in each of the morning and evening peak hours. This is accounted for in the project trip distribution and assignment, as discussed in the next section. It should he noted that the existing buildings on the site are not fully occupied. In particular, the "Half Dome" building at 4311 Jamboree Road is estimated to be operating at less than 50% capacity. Thereforc, the trip credits for the existing uses to be removed are based on actual site traffic measured at the site driveways. A comparison of actual site traffic and trip generation estimates based on standard ITE trip rates is provided on the following chart. As review of this chart shows, the use of actual site - generated traffic counts, rather than ITE trip rates, is the most conservative approach. Comparison of Project Trip Generation: Actual Site Driveway Counts vs, ITE Standard Trip Generation Rates Phase AM Peak Hour PM Peak hour Plisse Dail Daily In Out Total hi Out Total Driveway Counts 270 33 4 38 6 31 37 Ph. I . ITE Trip Generation Rates 1,349 166 22 188 30 153 183 Driveway Counts 747 90 12 102 15 88 102 Ph 2 ITE Trip Generation Rates 3,734 448 61 509 74 438 512 Uptown Newport Project -22- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation Rates r AM Peek Hour PM Peak Hour rrE In Out Total In Out I Total Land Use Code Unit Dail Apartment' 220 DU 6.65 0.102 0.408 0.510 0.403 0.217 Specialty Retail Center # 814 KSF 44.32 0.610 0.390 1.000 1.192 1.518 L74 Quali Restaurant 931 KSF 89.95 0.664 0.146 0.810 5.018 2.472 Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Dal! In I Out I Total I in Out Total Land Use Quantity Unit Trips for Existing Conexant Development to be Demolished for Phase 1 4311 Jamboree Buildings 1 270 1 33 4 38 6 31 37 Proposed Uptown Newport Phase 1 Development Apartment 680 DU 4,522 69 277 346 1 274 148 422 Specialty Retail Center 3 5.50 KSF 244 3 2 5 7 8 is Quality Restaurant 4 6.00 KSF 540 4 1 5 30 i5 45 subtotal -Phase 1 5,306 76 280 356 311 171 482 Retail Adjustment Factors 10% -24 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 Total Phase 1 Trips 5,282 76 280 355 310 170 480 Net New Phase S PA—Is 5,012 43 276 337 304 139 443 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers publication: Trip Generation. 8th Edition' ' The project may consist of a combination of multi- family residential product types, including condominium, apartment, townhome, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment" are used here. 3 ITE Trip Generation does not provide AM peak hour rates for a Specialty Retail Center. Therefore, the AM peak hour rates for Land Use Category 820 - Shopping Center were used to estimate AM peak hour trips. 4 Directional distribution for the AM Peak Hour is based on the the AM Peak Hour of Generator. s Source: Project site driveway counts s ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates pass -by for a shopping center is 34% in the PM peak hour. A 10% reduction is assumed for each peak hour, as directed by the City of Newport Beach staff. KSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = Dwelling Unit Uptown Newport Project -23- Kimley -Ham and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF PHASE 2 (FULL PROJECT) TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation Rates 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Trips Daily In Out Total In Out I Total Land Use code er Apartment 220 DU 6.65 0.102 0,408 0.510 0.403 0.217 0.62 Specialty Retail Center 3 814 KSF 4432 0,610 0390 1.000 1.192 1.518 2.71 Quality Restaurant 4 931 KSF 89.95 0.664 0.146 0.810 5.018 2,472 7.49 Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In I Out I Total In F Out Total Land Use Quantityl Unit Trips for Total Conexant Development to be Demolished for Entire Uptown Newport 4311 & 4321 Jamboree Buildings s 747 90 12 102 15 88 102 Proposed Uptown Newport Total Development Apartment' 1,244 DU 8,273 127 508 635 1 501 270 771 Specialty Retail Center 3 5.50 KSF 244 3 2 5 7 8 15 Quality Restaurant ° 6.00 KSF 540 4 1 5 30 15 45 Sub -total 9,057 134 S21 645 538 293 831 Retail Adjustment Factors 101 -24 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 Total Project Trips 9,033 134 511 644 537 292 829 Net New Total project ins 8,286 44 499 S42 S2 2204 727 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers publication: Trio Generation. 8th Edition 2 The project may consist of a combination of multi- family residential product types, including condominium, apartment, townhome, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment" are used here. 3 ITE Trio Generation does not provide AM peak hour rates for a Specialty Retail Center, Therefore, the AM peak hour rates for Land Use Category 820 - Shopping Center were used to estimate AM peak hour trips. 4 Directional distribution for the AM Peak Hour is based on the the AM Peak Hour of Generator. 5 Source: Project site driveway counts 6 ITE Trio Generation Handbook indicates pass -by for a shopping center is 341 in the PM peak hour. A 101 reduction is assumed for each peak hour, as directed by the City of Newport Beach staff. KSF = Thousand Square Feet DU= Dwelling Unit Uptown. Newport Project -24- Ifimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT" - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 Trip Distribution and Assignment Project trip distribution assumptions for the project site were developed individually for the existing industrial and office uses on the site, and for the proposed Uptown Newport Project. Trip distribution assumptions for the existing employment uses were based on observed traffic patterns to and from the project site, and on likely origins and destinations of project patrons and employees. Since the office development on the site will be removed, the existing office development trips were distributed as negative trips. Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed residential development were based on likely local and regional destinations in the project area, and the transportation network available for those trips. Distribution assumptions were submitted to City staff for review and concurrence. '.trip distribution assumptions for the existing office and industrial development are shown on Figure 8. Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed Uptown Newport Project on Figure 9. Based on these two trip distribution patterns, the net new trips to be added (or subtracted, if appropriate, due to the shift in traffic patterns from employment to residential) to the street system by the proposed project were combined and calculated. The resulting project trips are shown on Figure 10 for Phase l of the project, and on Figure 11 for the total proposed project. As described earlier, negative project volumes are the result of the shift in traffic patterns from employment - oriented uses, with heavier inbound flows in the morning and outbound in the evening; to residential uses, with reverse traffic flows. Uptown Newport Project -25- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study —DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 uVq LU �` �`ryry0.G o V z F- L 99.2 ti a INER C a al 0 �L 3 B F p Q 1y a i`C bd 2 Z u 6 X v { S mb Y W LU J O V LL ,t M O a °w a WM II, V w O 4 a LU LU c� u`. 3 EE Sm gg all �Ipl —n Z'� dm ryp � Ilc'R's � � xp ILYI —r 3 II a g $ LE. g n W LU J O V LL ,t M O a °w a WM II, V w O 4 a LU LU c� u`. 3 a � m @ 5 w � v S �r A Ye��•d SvmgE A aatU6g OQ i g WM r W Q Q s Y W 4 �yJM T U a. tu W U. ci U. W N aW u» o�» z m wiz R g d $$!! p 4 g a� vise _ gm Imx-. «- r�ix is �s 4 •-1•� K �� u—T � R Iw.,e� rMMI �^ wra-» ., -�Ytl� j0 � f �� cmx t1 r roE .-IaM & & '� €�"-^w J14 g® k fig$ pg 3rc�M Mgggn F W Q Q s Y W 4 �yJM T U a. tu W U. ci U. W N aW u» o�» EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS This section presents results of the analysis of the impacts associated with adding project - related trips to existing traffic volumes. The Existing Plus Project scenario is a hypothetical scenario which assumes that the Project would be fully implemented at the present time. This analysis is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and assumes full development of the Project and full absorption of Projecttraffic on the existing circulation system. Existing plus Project peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 12. The intersection analysis was conducted, and the results are summarized on Table 4. With the addition of project traffic to Existing Conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service. The addition of project traffic would not cause a significant impact at any study intersection. Uptown Newport Project -30- Kimley -Born and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT -NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 C O m +� c y E �o �E 0 Y r &°zam 0 g�maro a_U6� o© 1� qxo rr U) W .6 v LL LL q a a g3 Y g W 55 §� a U W 0 C CL M J N Q. Ix h1 (9 x Y LL W St�rik. J1L'-wa� 8 Sg �� d14' -°i �• 1L uwwa �KKZ ri�G i£ IwJeuti �+� s (tmlM9y MiNa4 Itllka.l �� Yoaz.T rr 1= Iw,16J rr €� {"mp1 Y 14 NLn' [> Lit ibN� rr 60 I] � Jl IWYw a—b�M1N �` it X�+ c• ��• •�6 SSL`«>a bll[, -" �'1�� q arlwe -� 6ygg€ � mwwzz ag"a_ Iwxs --. _rr p'�gq LL �r aeka -„ � i yam@@ �m J�L I""r k"ms €� IL qro �" r e J1�`'9,�aA' eaa- tFFr �$ ✓!4' -k«"� rr ° �� < `� J 1 •- win" waml.+ _ir # #{hwi � �� qa,: 5m Cg•g JC1 L L( y3 `- " "I:"' .L � @ ! L �'q Ivkf �.S` `• S�� INU `,��' �S L Ilk 11 �1Ilk `InUU KS $i3 �'taJffi as m t.UAU �tiyp�yqrr bmbVti rr WE • •x '8 � g gg � i, 8 �t� g @ g _ r r � gngqw -, e r r `ra�A� 11 r m i r r gF $3§gg6g6g `Y9 d14`+mk,o Lp $j tw �e kit Ji`-Iq�r C,v,', �� @ pygg R£ J1L`Im• iltlH C° p 4 JiL`I:aw d J!L` -lrm91 "� U) W .6 v LL LL q a a g3 Y g W 55 §� a U W 0 C CL M J N Q. Ix h1 (9 x Y LL W Eo O O • O t2 2 7 Z'Z' :2 :2 Z' z z X z z Z* :2 �2 Z' ZZ, z z z X z z z Z' Z' Z' . z z 20, z z z z z z z Z 7 z 6 C$ CG CJ 6 O 0 6 CO 6 6 ci 6 161 0 1 6 1 6 6 - 81- - -I 1*1�-> G C� C� 1:5 6 c; 6 C5 6 6 6 i 6 Ci 0 6 pO S4 U m m d¢ < u u < < u m ¢¢¢d ECm W qC3 tAm dm¢ <m¢ < < ¢dUU 'Sppy" 6 6 . . . C�� 6 c; 61 6 C; 6 6 6 6 IPI 6 .66 6 0 6 6 �j In, 6 '4: 61 ll� 0 IC "� 6 -C < 0 <j ci Q 45 6 6 6 0 v 0 m Ih i '�:51 m 6 r6 Cv O OO 6 d O 6 W z ¢d dWtzdd W m¢ dddmmccgmmC44tadd4CdUU I 1 1 66 C65 6 AA dui z d¢¢ U¢ d < < < d¢ S ie z z vv CQ W < < g 2 u 'i 5 m cud AIM I � > > I I I A U U Eo O O • O u N H � * N w 0 T A? FAX b Ci Fi Qnl y� H 4%c d � w R+ rt4 o a a o 0 0 o a �azzzzzzzzzz d w ¢zz°z°zzz zzz e s �n�a��oSSSB U M �a V ON �yy�^ O p Op O fpppy 6 u » x �U. O Y � •• a. g V mo {::1$ LQ fA � Q d u a o e 5 s P o o o a d o w ME O q m ffi u z o "3 Q v 3 � g a "M U U W pa E U to t S u u N H � * N w 0 T A? FAX b Ci Fi Qnl y� H 4%c d � w R+ rt4 FUTURE CONDITIONS Near -term future traffic forecasts have been developed for two analysis conditions — Opening Year with Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects traffic, representing analysis of the conditions required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO); and Opening Year with Committed plus Cumulative Projects, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A discussion of each is provided in the following sections. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis The City of Newport Beach TPO first requires determination of whether project trips will increase traffic volumes on any leg of a Primary Intersection by one percent or more during either the morning or evening peak hour one year after project completion, or that portion of the project expected to be constructed within five years (sixty months) of project approval, which would be Year 2018. The TPO then requires a Level of Service analysis of the project impact at any Primary Intersection that exceeds the 1 % threshold. The entire Uptown Newport Project is not anticipated to be completed within five years of approval. Therefore, the TPO analysis will address that portion of the project expected to be completed within the five -year timeframe — referred to as Phase 1. The remaining part of the project to be completed after the five -year timeframe will be required to prepare a separate TPO analysis at a later date to satisfy the requirements of the TPO ordinance. For TPO purposes, traffic forecasts are developed by applying an ambient growth rate of one percent per year on primary roadways (Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Irvine Avenue) in the project vicinity, plus traffic from Committed Projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Committed projects consist of projects in the City of Newport Beach that have been approved, but are not yet fully constructed and occupied. Committed Projects information was provided by the City of Newport Beach Staff. A copy of the Committed Projects data sheets provided by the City of Newport Beach is included in Appendix C. A summary of Committed Projects for Newport Beach is provided on Table 5. Traffic volumes generated by the Committed Projects in the study area were added to existing peak hour volumes plus ambient growth to develop Year 2018 TPO forecast traffic volumes as shown on Figure 13. iPO 1 °la Ana si In accordance with City of Newport Beach traffic study requirements, the project traffic contribution at the study intersections was evaluated for the TPO Analysis to determine the extent of the traffic impact analysis required of the project. The study intersections identified through the 1% Analysis will be evaluated for the TPO Analysis, as required by the City of Newport Beach traffic study requirements. Uptown Newport Project -34- Kimtey -Aom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBIJT10N May, 2012 v xy �mm °am z � H g 7�i W ryR V U. �9 W Q S Q V W 3 4 a +A `w h M � N c�a u. >- r, ¢ y$ 14M1 g� ITU 4 s- IRPIIN � 41p[ .-OdWS � JbL"¢�a, kY O • ,� § S+ tywM % wvwu7ttFr m' i 'y r L •-QJN( E € J i J L •-1.` £E� °-1 gy J i L w"� C 1 L m4s a4m ( MJ! 0[Wti'v OF $g§' ry MtM 6E e_`� 7fr tT iE err 0tpa[^rtl qgv e0� ImM Z d�tr I&belf^Su um ItlA -Y�I ,d MGIYA ySf f W1s $ tlU N S� T T tt it( �_ lw.P 1a1t f 3 ¢n.1 w vmd® —• .A d -.. m vuem� S inure^. ga :�P G $' g t r �m �yy m A a g @gggp FtlP LYebt9 J d L i01'w uama �6 � .§� w.w- -' e"lNMfi �— uxv+ �/S � �� lreVn —* ® ® ®gpppa ti'Wlke ` o lu CS _ ffi��'`- J 1 S rolixc -+ IIPJMt� . —lwd�m awe r r € J 14 w �... mow n r r<—At( ll.du6 -. a »un„ W ryR V U. �9 W Q S Q V W 3 4 a +A `w h M � N c�a u. >- r, TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF COM:NIITTED PROJECTS City Project Number Project Name Percent Com late Newport Beach ti> 148 Fashion island Expansion 4II°fo 154 Temple Bat Yahm Ex anp Slbn 65% 555 CIOSA— Irvine Project 91% 910 Newport Danes 0% 945 Hoag Hospital Phase III 0% 949 St. Mark Presbyterian Church 77% 954 QA Church Expansion 0% 955 _2L 2300 Newport Boulevard 0% 957 Ne owp rt Exeoutive Court 00/0 958 Hoag Health Center 75% 959 North Newport Center 0°10 960 Santa Barbara Condo 0% 961. Newport Beach City Hall 0 °l0 962 328 Old Newport Medical 0% 963 ( Coastline Communit College 0% 964 Bayview Medical Office 0% 965 Mariner's Pointe 0% 966 4221 Dolphin Striker 0% Source: City of Newport Beach — Traffic Phasing Ordinance Data — Includes approved Tojecis less than 100% complete. Uptown Newport Project -36- Rimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 For the TPO Analysis, the project- related morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the Year 2018 without Project peak hour volumes on each leg of each study intersection to determine whether or not the project would result in a 1% increase. The results of the analysis are summarized on Table 6. 1% Analysis Worksheets for the TPO Analysis are provided in Appendix D. Review of Table 6 shows that the project traffic will exceed 1% on at least one approach in one or both peak hours at each of the Newport Beach study intersections. The project will proceed with a TPO traffic impact analysis at all of the study intersections. It should be noted that the 1% Analysis was not conducted for the study intersections in the City of Irvine, since the TPO requirement only applies to the City of Newport Beach intersections. However, all of the study intersections in the City of Irvine have been analyzed for all study scenarios in this report. Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project Intersection analysis was conducted for Year 2018 TPO Analysis (Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects) without Project peak hour traffic conditions. ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project peak hour volumes were presented previously on Figure 13. The results of the intersection analysis ate summarized on Table 7. The following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project Conditions: • 21. Jamboree Road at 1 -405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F) ® 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: I,OS F) • 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. TPO Analysis with Project The project traffic- related impacts for Phase I of the project will be evaluated for the Year 2018 TPO Analysis (Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects). Uptown Newport Project -37- Kimley -Flom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT— NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 6 SIJMMARY OF I% ANALYSIS TPO ANALYSIS No. Intersecting Condition VNorthbound A roach Southbound Approach Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach 4 q 5 MacArthur Boulevard @ Campus Drive !0h of ro octed pk krvo(ume 10 12 14 16 11 7 3 10 Project peak hour volume 60 29 12 74 0 0 to 5 Project traffic less than 1 %? N N Y N Y Y N Y 6 MacArthur Boulevard @ Birch Street 1 %of rojected khrvolumn 9 9 10 12 4 6 2 6 'cut hour volume 15 9 10 63 0 0 45 20 Project traffic less than 1 %? N N N N Y Y N N 7 MacArthur Boulevard @ Von Kaman Avenue 1% of 'eeted hr volume 16 8 6 10 1 5 2 8 Project ak hour volume 15 9 4 16 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 °107 Y N Y N Y Y Y Y 8 MacArthur Boulevard @ Jamboree Road 1 %of" projected pk in volume 21 12 6 16 16 13 13 18 Project peak hour volume 6 63 4 16 25 184 25 t 115 Project traffic less than 1 %7 Y N Y _ N N N N N i5 Von Kaman Avenue @ Campus Drive 1% of proected pk hr volume 6 6 5 10 E 6 6 4 5 Project Leak hear volume 10 3 3 26 1 2 11 25 13 Pro cor traffic less than toW N Y Y N I Y N N N 24 Jamboree Road @ Campus Drive 1°/e, of Projected pk hr volume 16 16 27 18 3 7 9 8 Project peak how volume 153 56 2 134 5 27 0 0 Project traffic less than 10 /a? N N Y N N N Y Y 25 Jamboree Road @Birch Street 1% of projected pk hr volume 14 20 21 16 2 5 0 0 Pra' ak how volume 104 35 1 160 49 ib 1 0 0 Project traffic Tess than 10/0 N N Y N N N I Y Y 27 Jamboree Road@ Bristol Street North I %of prejeclad pk hr volume 20 30 to i5 0 1 0 1 Project pe& hour volume 25 184 176 81 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 %? N N N N Y Y Y Y 28 Jamboree Road @ Bristol Street South 1% of projectcd pk hr volume 13 22 8 10 20 22 0 1 Pmect peak how volume 4 52 50 20 21 132 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 %? Y N N N N N Y Y 29 Jamboree Road @ Bayvkw Way 1 %of ro'ected k ht volume, 16 19 19 20 2 1 1 2 Project peak hour volume 4 52 50 20 0 i 0 0 0 Project vaffic less than 1 %? Y N N N Y Y Y Y 30 Jamboree Road @ University Drive l%ofPmjectedpkbrvWumc 17 20 18 22 6 5 6 6 Proiectiteakhourvolame 4 52 50 20 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than M.? Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 34 Campus Drive @ Bristol Street North 1% of projected Vic hr volume 19 11 4 16 0 0 13 23 Project peak how volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 55 Project traffic less than NO Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 35 Birch Street @ Bristol Street North 1% of projected pk hr volume 10 5 3 11 0 0 17 20 Prn'eet Nak hour volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 126 1 61 Project traffic less than 1 %? Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 36 Campus Drive @ Bristol Street South 1 °% of poljocted its In volume 10 9 4 10 30 19 0 0 Project peak how volume 2 26 25 10 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than I %? Y N N N Y Y Y Y 37 Birch Street @ Bristol Street South 1 %of projected as hr volume 6 6 6 9 18 14 0 0 Project pmk how volume 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 Project "WIG less than l %? Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 38 Bayview Place @ Bristol Street South 1% of projected pk hr volume 1 3 0 0 27 27 0 0 Project peak howvolume 0 0 0 0 21 02 0 0 Project traffic less than l%? y 1 Y Y Y N Y Y 39 Irvine Avenue @ Mesa Drive I% Of m toted k hr volume 14 8 —5—T--14 3 2 2 7 Project peak hour volume 2 26 2$ 10 0 0 0 0 Pro "ect traffic less than 1 %7 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Uptown Newport Project -38- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 7 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2018 WITHOUT PROJECT - TPO ANALYSIS Intersection UtS Without Project AMP Rour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LAS ICU(Dela LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd(Main St a S 0.6 A 0.8 C 2 MacArthur Blvd/I -405 NB Ramps a S 0.8 C 0.7 C 3 MacArthur Blvd/1-405 SB Ramps " S 0.7 B Q.8 C 4 MacArthur BlvdtMichelson Dr a S 0.6 B 0.9 B 5 MacArthur Blvd/Campus Dr a S 0.6 B 0.9 D b MacArthur Blvd/Birch St S 0.4 A 0.5 A 7. MacArthur B1vdtVots Kerman Ave S 0.6 A 0.5 A 8 MacArthur Btvd/lamborce Rd an S 0.6 B 0.7 C 9 MacArthur Blvd/Faircbild Rd a S 0.9 D 0.7 B 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- ramp/University Dr S 0.5 A 0.6 B 11 MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramp/University Dr S 0A A 0.3 A 12 Von Karmen Ave. /Main St a S 0.8 D 0.9 D 13 Von Kamm Ave)Mrchelson Dr a S 0.7 B 09 D 14 Von Karmen Ave/Dupont Dr a S 0.5 A 0.6 B 15 Von Karrnan Ave/Campus Dr a S 0.7 B 0.9 D 16 Von Kerman Ave/Birch St S 03 A 0A A 17 IToller Ave(Campus Dr a S 0.5 A 0.5 A 1$ Tally AveBimh 5t U 12.1 B 11.5 B l9 Sambarec Rd/Main St a S 0.9 H 1.0 B 20 Jamboree Rd1I.405 NB Ramps a. 5 0.7 C 09 B 21 Jamboree Rd/I.405 SB Ramps a' S 1.0 .. '.12. �:... 0.4 B 22 Jamboree RdiMiehelson Dr a S 0.8 C 1.2 ..:�E..,.. 23 Jamboree Rd/Dupont Dr " S 0.7 C 0.8 C 24 Jamboree Rd/Campus Dr a S 0.8 C 0.8 D 25 Jamboree RdfBirch St S 0.6 A 0.7 B 26 13ainbetree Rd/Fairchild Rd " S 0.7 B 0.7 C 27 Jamboree RdBristol St North S 0.3 A 0.5 A 28 Jamboree Rd/Bristol St South S 05 A 0.6 A 29 Jamboree RdBayview Way S 0A A 0.4 A 30 Jamboree Rd/University Dr S 0.6 B 0.6 A 31 Carlson Ave/Mkbelson Dr a S 0.6 B 0.9 D 32 Carlson Ave /Campus Dr a S 0.6 B 0.8 D 33 Harvard Ave/Michelson Dr S 0.7 C 0.9 E 34 Campus Dr/Bristol St North S 0.5 A 0.7 C 35 Birch St/Bristol St North S 05 A 0.6 A 36 Campus Dr/bristol St South S 0.6 A 0.5 A. 37 Birch St/Bristol St South S 0.4 A 0.4 A 38 Bayview PUBristol St South S 0.4 A 0.5 A 39 Irvine AvefMosa Dr S 0A A 0.5 A 40 University Dr /Campus Dr S 0.8 D 0.8 D 41 Mesa Rd/University Dr S 1 0.6 B 0.4 D 42 California Avo/University Dr S 0.6 A 0.7 B 43 Birch St1Driv U 8.8 A 11.3 B Notes: a = lotaseetioo is loomed within the Irvine Business Complex Visioa Phn Nee (LOSE Aawptable) b.00mlmCouoty Congestion Ma mmmeot Program(CMP) mta aim(LOS EACcq%able) 5- Signalized, U- Unsigaalind Hold values indicate I wmxtions gXMfing at mum,=Puble LOS. imme,ow operation isTPogmed in avemp=onds ofdeiayper wbick dmieg thep"k hour formnagnalind kacme Lions mine HCM 2400 Me &odology and iS TPOpowed in vmumrtompacity (v /c) for signalmd imenemims using ICU Medtodology. Uptown Newport Project - 39 - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 Year 2018 TPO Analysis with Phase I In this scenario, project - related peak hour traffic volumes for Phase i of the project are added to the Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project traffic volumes. Phase 1 development would consist of removal of the 4311 Jamboree building, and development of 680 of the residential units, and all of the 11,500 square feet of commercial. Year 2018 . TPO Analysis with Phase 1 peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 14. The results of the intersection analysis are summarized on Table 8. With the addition of Phase I project traffic, three study intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service: 0 21. Jamboree Road at 1405 SS Ramps (AM: LOS F) 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) 33, Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at any of these intersections, therefore, the addition of Phase I trips would not result in a significant impact. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project related impact of Phase 1 at the intersection of Harvard Avenue and Michelson Drive would be slightly negative, meaning that the reduction in existing office trips would more than offset the addition of the proposed residential trips. As a result, the intersection operations would improve slightly as a result of the proposed project, but would continue to operate at LOS E. The project would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase I project trips at any of the study intersections, Uptown Newport Project -40- Kimley -Hon and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impart Study -DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 C O r _ C � a o E ��zza m� €dam 0 �`Sab z 60Oi� N w U LL S tx ryW ♦WA qI[ C` N Y .J 'K( ep CO LL ! rt r 4 zir ?r $ pay m „a~W fit �$ 1 k �,CCP$ vik e : uWm„�it!' rF,� g ioweti #k$ 39 darcg.,x um-�, rt p itmyyw,gg-.. jj gggg ,nw .pW.T �S¢{ MTmJ W� iptl'.9 go` $8 M.kmJ , J 4,'Ir @ AtlWI y� g gg if w U LL S tx ryW ♦WA qI[ C` N Y .J 'K( ep CO LL ! O3 dr u 14 O Z Z 11 + d �I d d 7 2:2 Z, Z,Z,iz z ;�h2 2 Z, Z* Z, z z z z 5 , O z o z o z X© 7 ! z o Z ' Z ' Z ' Z ' Z . z z z z z z z z z ci 6 Cr 0 6 O 6 Q C O 0 0 CJ O O 4 O O O O O 61616 '0 "0 O q R R ql 4� 0 4P C� 9 00 U m m pq < d pq a d < IZ Pal I M d¢ I w U 44 U U U d U 6 d d m 14 M "4 6 6 0 O� 6 6 ul U w Q d d U m m d a cl Cni 0 d d l w w w Pk u a Do u¢¢ d < a a I'l F. q It w u , 9'� Q U U -14 ro d¢ 6 m m m U GwrW 15 mz 15 6 04 w 04 9 > > > > O3 dr u 14 O V N rdi O . N N 0 id a x d 5 r4 v po a E- A c� a 0 z W v p O y T Gi. O �V Y Z C 4U O � F z z z z z z z z° z z 2 2 2 z. z z 5 t 4 c0 0 O+ 0 Cn p 0 N 0 m 9 O 0 O 0 d 0 N y O y u� a' ri ci c+ d c o ci o ei d c a° O d p p 6 O O O N O O O O O O O O O U d 6 d d@ g p m m V m a � 4 � W o a d d ci d ci p ci o y c� 6dddddQmdd yr, � s I C� W� y C d' q n O b O y O •t O v O e B oo O b O v G b M � �O U@dd6d QQmm '" c a0W 4a �R a HW z 0. . yyw I g z 4 Q O O O.. O C t? C x a aw m �s q m o o� 4q Vtt ,y S E 5 zo no'n .G °56 1 _131 m` V nLg.%� -' C `v a,e ac v w x a n Q m Lm m I.O.M. �5 p w II N m m m v v v m V N rdi O . N N 0 id a x d 5 r4 v po a E- A c� a 0 z W v p O y T Gi. O �V Y Z C 4U O � F Cumulative Conditions Analysis CEQA requires that a Cumulative Conditions analysis be conducted. The Cumulative Conditions analysis includes traffic from Cumulative Projects in the vicinity of the project. Cumulative Projects consist of the Committed Projects (approved projects in the City of Newport Beach), as well as other projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process, but have not yet been approved. These projects are considered to be "reasonably foreseeable" projects, and must therefore be analyzed for CF,QA purposes. The Cumulative Projects list includes the Committed Projects, plus pending projects in the City of Newport Beach, as well approved and pending projects in the City of Irvine. A summary of Cumulative Projects is provided on Table 9. Trip generation associated with the Cumulative Projects is provided on Table 10. The location of the Cumulative Projects in relation to the project site is shown on Figure 15. Peak hour traffic volumes for Cumulative Projects are summarized for each study intersection on Figure 16. Cumulative Projects information and data provided by the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine are provided in Appendix C. The Cumulative Conditions analysis was conducted for two timeframes based on project phasing: • Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects with Phase 1 • Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects with the Full Project Future Year Cumulative Conditions peak hour traffic volumes for the City of Newport Beach intersections were developed by adding an ambient growth rate of one percent per year to existing volumes on primary roadways and then adding peak hour traffic volumes from the Cumulative Projects. For the City of Irvine intersections, City of Irvine transportation planning staff provided peak hour traffic forecasts from the Irvine Traffic Analysis Model ([TAM) which is maintained and operated by the City. The ITAM forecasts include the effects of ambient traffic growth and traffic from Cumulative Projects. ITAM forecasts represent year 2015 traffic volumes, therefore, Irvine staff recommended applying a growth factor of 1.5% per year to develop year 2018 and 2021 forecasts. Uptown Newport Project -44- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Project Project Name Location Existing Project Description Proposed Project Description No. City of Newport Beach I Mwoux's Medical Arts 1901 Westclifl Drive N/A 12,245 GSF Medical Office Addition 2 Banning Ranch 4520 W. Coast Highway N/A 1,375 DU Mixed Residential 75,000 GSF Commercial Retail 75 Room Hotel, 28 Acre Park 3 Sunset Ridge Park 4850 W. Coast Highway N/A 13.67 Active Park 2 Fields Soccer Complex 4 Marina Park 1700 Balboa Boulevard 57 DUMobile Home Park Balboa Center Complex: 26,990 GSF 1.2 Acre Park Visiting Vessel Marina: 23 slips 2,900 GSF Recreational Marina Services Bldg: 1,328 GSF Comicality Center Girl Scout House: 5,500 GSF 5 Koff 4311 Jamborce Road 167,000 Office 260 Residential Dwelling Units 20,000 General Light Industrial 3,400 GSF Commercial 6 Newport Coast Newport Coast Drive 2,807 Acre State Park 3,180 DU Single Family Residential to 1,298 DU Condommiunrffow thouse (a> 582 DU Multi parody (t) 7 Newport Beech Country 1600 East Coast Highway NIA 5 Residential DU, 27 Hotel Units, Club ¢7 3,523 GSF Tennis Club with Spa 51,213 GSF Golf Club with acc. Facility 7 Tennis Courts and a Swimming Pool 8 AERIE rai 201 Camation Ave 114 DU Apartment 16 DU Condominium City of Irvine 10 Element Hotel 17662 Amrstro NIA 122 Room Extended Stay Hotel 11 Diamond Jamboree Southwest Corner of N/A 25,362 GSA Office Miilikan/Aiton 12 Irvine Crossing 17836 Gillette and 107,629 GSF Warchouse 178,500 GSF Office 17871 Von Karman 4,726 GSF Office 13 Central Park Northwest comer of 240,970 GSF Warehouse 1,380 DU Residential Jamboree Road / 74,774 GSF Office 90,000 GSF Office, 19,700 GSF Retail 14 Metlife 2567 Main Street 48,712 GSF Office 481 DU Residential 8600 GSF industrial 15 Essex 2552 Kelvin Avenue NIA 132 DU Residential 16 The Lofts 2300 Dupont Drive N/A 116 DU Residential 17 Avalon1 2701 Alton Parkway 42,187 OSF Office 280DUResidential 6,132 GSF Industrial 18 2801 Alton Parkway N/A 178 DU Residential 19 Plus M & N 3000 Scholarship NIA 105 DU Residential 20 Carlyle 2201 Martin Court N/A 156 DU Residential 21 Granite Coup 17421 Murphy Avenue 4,229 GSF Office 71 DU Residential 22 2801 Kelvin Avenue NIA 248 DU Residential 23 17352 Von Karmen N/A 32,066 GSF Office 67,648 GSF Warehouse 24 Metropolis 2500 Main and 23,957 GSF Office 457 DU Residential 17872 Cartwright 90,053 GSF Industrial 25 Aloft Extended Stay Hotel 2320 Main Street N/A 170 Rooms 26 HINES 18582 Teller and 25,828 GSF Office 78500 Office 2722 Michelson 153,727 GSF Industrial I5,500 GSF Retail 27 Park Place Northeast comer of 2,649,220 GSF Office 3,697,770 GSF Office Jamboree Road / 127,419 GSF Retail 350,000 GSF Retail Michelson Drive 232 DU Residential 2,008 DU Residential, 308 Hotel Rooms 28 2851 Alton 12,700 GSF Office 171 DU Residential 66,100 GSF Industrial 29 Martin Street Residential '831 Von Kaanan and NIA 82 DU Residential 2301 Martin DU- Dwelling Units, GSF = Gross Square Feet, SF = Square Feet rnAssumes 70% Occupied al This project would not result in an increase in traffic genenotion. Uptown Newport Project -45- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Project No. I Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak hour In Out Total In Out Total City of New ort Beach 1 442 22 6 28 11 31 42 2 14,989 251 655 906 866 564 1,430 3 165 1 1 2 29 13 42 4 352 15 0 15 7 19 26 5 1,493 24 86 110 81 49 130 6 tz 14,778 272 932 1,204 926 557 1 1,482 Total 32 219 385 1,680 Z 263 1,920 1,233 3,152 City of b-A e 10 997 42 27 69 38 34 72 11 279 35 5 40 6 31 37 12 1,530 211 25 236 35 189 224 13 9,333 117 559 676 577 297 874 14 2,064 -76 174 98 166 -14 152 15 878 13 54 67 53 29 82 16 771 12 1 47 59 1 47 25 72 17 1,355 -33 105 72 101 5 106 18 1,184 18 73 91 72 39 111 19 698 11 43 54 42 23 65 20 1,037 16 64 80 63 34 97 21 425 1 28 29 28 10 38 22 1,649 25 101 126 100 54 154 23 594 60 1 10 70 13 56 69 24 2,148 -48 168 120 162 8 170 25 1,389 58 37 95 53 47 100 26 7,955 939 124 1,063 192 864 1,056 27 71,610 5,568 1,711 7,279 2,483 5,759 8,242 28 537 -46 58 12 54 -24 1 30 29 545 8 33 41 33 18 51 Total 106 978 61931 2,446 10,377 4,318 7,484 11802 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers publication Trip Generation 8th Edition unless otherwise noted (o Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Rates Uptown Newport Project -46- Kimley -Ham and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 _47_ C O O{ u � m � @ F m _$ F a 3 W m g y m O ZzVa$ E m fi cW C J } W r M O x Q W IL F U W O a. O. W 7 cO � U � e n C fat 19 e� ati !may _ p i 91, 7p z a a ca � aa Al If cW C J } W r M O x Q W IL F U W O a. O. W 7 cO � U � e Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project peak hour traffic volumes for all study intersections are shown on Figure 17. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project intersection operations are summarized on Table 11. As was the case with the TPO Analysis, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project: 0 21. Jamboree Road at 1-405 SIB Ramps (AM: LOS F) r 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS fi) All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. �r 2018 Cumulative Conditions lv%tlt Phase 1 In this scenario, project - related peak hour traffic volumes for Phase I of the Uptown Newport project were added to the Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions w ithout Project traffic volumes. The resulting Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 18, Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 12. The following intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1: i 21. Jamboree Road at 1 -405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F) 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS 1:) The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at any of these intersections, and would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase 1 trips. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours, The project - related impact of the project at some of the study intersections would be negative, once again reflecting the reduction in existing office trips, which would more than offset the trips that would be added as a result of the proposed residential development in the evening peak hour at some intersections. As a result, some intersections would improve slightly as a result of the project. Uptown Newport Project -49- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 C O W C } = a � 0 v�Z�g m �v ey E)a a min J tea, tr w J U H K O S Y w v w O ra O z O F G z O U a N WK u', A ImrVSy 5$ Imuvm� i TT K . —wuWmi «- iaenmi b .—hssu `� J i L `-eta° gg J 1 � •-dzmv aura w°a � J L"- mwu�.i �� Q,_1L`waro. .� -cornrow wwi 1L,riT TT- r rr � ;r -T �� c J14` I[ro11NH -aean ` !4, -rero <w }r J1L' I "'nix pq g J!L'�a�ca W PMD HH Jl 1j �W JdL` kYM� -am' rr N4z" ] flit ggggg 41 y5 J1L., nw $ JIL`wai� d!L`ae�. � } qg 61att —. r 33 §p Y6 J J L awlx tt:v:m i t `� gygy #ps i, yvi l�w"ei 11 wmw 4 r L J 4 '^ �-.1 «w� „ Y T 1 ! L'-iw4 wi u°- t t � J ! L a"°' `Ims t t _ willg w J U H K O S Y w v w O ra O z O F G z O U a N WK u', A TABLE 11 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2019 , CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Intersection U/S without Pro act AM Peak Hoar PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS IC1J/ Dela LOS MacArthur Blvd/Main St " S 0.6 A 0.8 C MacArthur Blvdti -405 NB Ramps a S 0.8 C 0.7 C MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 SB Ramps a S 0.7 B 0.8 C 1,MacArthur MacArthur Blvd/Miehelson Dr a S 0.6 B Q9 E MacArthur Blvd7Campus Dr a S 0.6 B 0.9 D MacArthur Blvd/Bireb, St S 0.4 A 0.5 A Blvd/Von Kamlms Ave S 03 B 0.5 1 A 8 MacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Rd A-11 S 0.8 C 0.9 D 9 MacArthur Blvd/Fairchild Rd a S 0.9 D 0.7 B 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- ramp/11niversity Or S 0.5 A 0,6 B I I MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramp/University Dr S 0,4 A 03 A 12 Von Karman Ave/Main St a S 0.8 D 0.9 D 13 Von Kerman Ave/Michelson Dr a S 0,7 B 0.9 E 14 Von Karmen Ave(Dupont Dr '" S 0.5 A 0,6 B 15 Van Kerman Ave(Camptts Dr a S 0.7 B 0.4 D 16 Von Karmen Ave/Birch St S 0.3 A 0.4 A 17 Teller AvelCampus Dr a S 0'5 A 0.5 A 18 'teller Ave/Birch St U 1213 B 11.6 B 19 Jamboree mmain St a S 0.9 E 1.0 E 20 Jamboree Rd/1405 NB Ramps a' S 0.7 C 0.9 E 21 Jmnbmee Rd/1 -405 SB Ramps " S 1.0 1.0 E 22 lJmnboree RA(Michelsols Dr a S 018 C 1.2 .F ' 23 Jamboree Rd/Dupont Dr a S 0.7 C 0.8 C 24 IJambaree Rd/Campus Dr a S 0.8 C 0.8 D 25 Jamboree Rd/Birch St S 0.6 A 0.7 B 26 Jamboree Rd/Fairchild Rd a S 1 0.7 C 0.8 C 27 Jamboree RdBristol St North S 0.4 A 0.6 A 28 Jamboree Rd/Bristol St South S 0.5 A 0.6 B 29 Jamboree RdlBayview Way S 0.4 A OS A 30 Jamboree RdlUniversityDr S 03 B 0.7 B 31 Carlson Ave(Michelson Dr a S 116 B 0.9 D 32 Carlson Ave/Campus Dr a S 0.6 B 0.8 D 33 Harvard Ave/Michelson Dr S 03 C 0.9 7E 7 - 34 Campus Dr/3nstol St North S i 0.5 A 0.7 C 35 Birch St/Bristol St North S 0.5 A 0.6 A 36 Campus Dr/Bristol St South S 0.6 B 0.5 A 37 Birch St/Brisml St South S 0.4 A 0.4 A 38 Beyview PI/Bristol St South S 0.4 A OS A 39 hvine AveiMese Dr S 0.4 A 0.6 A 40 University DdCampus Dr S 0.8 D 0.8 D 41 iMesa Rd/Umversity Dr S 0.6 B 0.9 D 42 California AveNniversity, Dr S 0.6 B 0.7 B 43 Birch St/Driveway S 1 8.8 113 B Nam a= fearsectim is located widunthe Wine auvaesscompiex Vision Plan Axe® (WS E AcceptaMo) b ^Change covey Congestion Managemeta Program(CMP)iatersecti[m(LOS E Acceptable) S ^ Signalized, V- Umignahzed Bald vahms indicate intasactiosa operating at an unacceptable LDS, haersectim operation is TPOti sled in average secoads of delay per vehicle during the Peak hoax foe rmaignahzai iettsecdons using HCM 2000 Methodology and isT rased Nsailwne- to- capaci. (v/c) for sill2alhed Raft enev; usi!!§ 1CU Methodology. Uptown Newport Project -51- Kimley -Isom and .Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 C o m c r UC O 5 mead« C � C O 8dma 2�UQ N N w O a V LL LL V Y a w IL w Q s a z z O F O LU 7 Q (i fA CO a N Ci W Ivt,MMi 9a p ,WkFI $ (a_Ippyyp� $" 4u1vN1 p otlw �4 — � B fix rte` s � 14 rm� 43 rr w r rr a mma =r a� :z ,rr _rr `u"Yk' € €� J1Lr" e1 t � 1 u l °gig a �•.• 1� J L �.D �ahtS 3��'419Lk i1L 71 Ea s L LYa1N 1°xm� 4a� Ystl,v 3& tlevlo ppqq 8 ♦ � IF� cmra -Y � i m�, .: �� g �� o€ N w O a V LL LL V Y a w IL w Q s a z z O F O LU 7 Q (i fA CO a N Ci W SO O O O bT I;- Z Tz" Z- z I z z z 7 z z z zo 7,- dd;d 421 z z Z� Z' Z, �z 7< zo ,q z z ZO 70 zo Z, z z z z zi z z z z z z a- O O y 4? 6 dF C5 oO 6 oO O opp O C516 aOO 6 oO O C5 aryP 0 6 ortp0 6 =i 66 95 6 C65 6 6 .1 61" 6 o c0000Q o0 x and m w m as < < m w m 171, 6 616 c; 61c; O 6 6: 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 1. AW � a u Ulu w tl d le A mm¢ 0 M cm a < -e m w w mix u 0 m u¢ m¢m iz n w 6:0 -Q 11 -q IR 1-: 6 �q cl 0 0 < u m m mr 1l U Ca < 4aA I CQ < < e, M W u Ulu u < u < < < u I �Fxf 'T cD 1� n n' O In 1 .1 b v V 04 6 04 o4 :0 A I All I , I SO O O O bT ll 8 5 Rcz 14 in in Z) O Z° ZO zo Z° z° z Z, CF C's In co m¢ C �t < m a m m pWQWO 14 8;5 r u 86 ll 8 5 Rcz 14 in in Z) O Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Proiect Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project peak hour traffic volumes for all study intersections are shown on Figure 19. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project intersection operations are summarized on Table 13. For this scenario, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project: 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street: (PM: LOS F) 21. Jamboree Road at 1 -405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F) N 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak bouts. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Full ProjecE In this scenario, project - related peak hour traffic volumes for the full Uptown Newport project were added to the Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project traffic volumes. The resulting Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 20. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 14. The following intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project traffic: M 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street: (PM: LOS F) 21. Jamboree Road at 1 -405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F) 22, Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) 33, Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at any of these intersections, and would not result in a significant impact with the addition of the fall Project trips. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project- related impact of the project at some of the study intersections would be negative, once again reflecting the reduction in existing office trips, which would more than offset the trips that would be added as a result of the proposed residential development in the evening peak hour at some intersections. As a result, some intersections would improve slightly as a result of the project. Uptown Newport Project _55- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 yC C 0 �m� =o ��abr c I5 E W wwww S m m M y 5602 � 86 "Wh. 1 �r it w @W G U 1i(( /141 W i W U W Q V 0 U TI U F � WN N r-UWrw S IW4%R, d a -uwIXar :� ^'(S ♦-W$i9 's pgi.r µa r� 4H1r11$L6t YaYiP,�t WiW 0111 $t Em ItinMe -r7�t, 'S rfU 5g� RE4 g i$1 _rI hW�W� "g` —Ipmrrc a g€ J 1 (an� (,.. law 9 O�,Im� � -LLXM:4 _� N I �_ tYOMrN1r r x"` hS 1! J `"'tt `1m jQ d' tttrm saris 8� ��• 9aS >£ 'e.S.ms-" �$ 34 pyI 3 Qa �v 9=S yy �fl 1 J t � i gg} o-Vt'+Yl Ca " f¢M ir � Q � g alp �ClalC ho rmu§ t � pp� X d t ;tF �mNrl Y .l�tm �3m C M J t t �tRm9, 6� pgg J 1 1 R"MLW apT #� Inmre -> �$ S _ i a s B3 <-muw ntlwsr m �.mlar .-r$ tt ! _441 --Imm� °�9aa r ��° °sl, ggg J tIoR"1' tml a J 1 ' - )T ;g ; M,w,wa q i ^�� 9tt °� d [$ �� . -wm15' am �� 6 i t"+G'n. C ram d LT _, 41p „y @ &E i +�i F"� .-aw �✓5 $g Iwkn -y #RE ,i# � '`IrPbt� rm"eiu Nu QO g Im1MR'^a �N di NTA 2 a Sra VIE1tt 56$ LI[vb �t I ww --AE tt 40 5ifi �SE� jS EStf It 1n9 g m ISO! J 1 °zx J 1 t 11em n $ ¢ J i mni w gg swam m Y$ .£M � - @ulkIX J1 rmsR �� aA 1 WI J�`LrN'1 J trlWre m�».'S to �u F �s J! Wm.1ea1 smlr 5 t f S � J� » .. Unittat _ma 1't r � ffi� �� IaeIRer la f IwVtll'yg6 IwN,r-v 01U14"v g¢t � mm�ls —. IrUlusl , mev 41ke'4 r�'�n y di — g its �,� $y� �. nF S& w @W G U 1i(( /141 W i W U W Q V 0 U TI U F � WN N TABLE 13 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Intersection U/S Without Project AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour ICU( Delay LOS [ICU/Delayl LOS I MacArthurB(vd/MmnSt a S 0b B 0.8 D 2 MacArthur Blvd/I-405 NB Ramps a S 0 -8 C 0,7 C 3 MacArthur Blvd/i-405 SB Ramps ' S 0 -7 B 0.8 D 4 MacArthur BlvdlMichelson Dr a S 0.7 B 1.0 E 5 MacArthur Blvd(Campus Dr a S 0.7 B 0.9 £ 6 MacArthur B1vd/Bifch St S 0.4 A 0..5 A 7 MacArthur Blvd/Von Korman Ave S 0,7 B 0.5 8 MacArthur BlvdtJariboroe Rd " S 0.8 C 0.9 9 MacArthur Blvd/Fairchild Rd a S 0.9 E 0.7 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- ramplUniversity Dr S . 0.6 A 0.7 11 MacArthur Blvd SB Off- rarap/University Dr S 0.4 A 0.3 12 Von Kansan Ave/Main St a S 0.8 D - 0.9 13 Von Karmen Ave/Michelson Dr " S 0.1 C 0.9 14 Von Karman Ave/Dupont Dr a S OS A 0.6 ID 15 Von Karman AvelCampus Dr '' S 0.7 C 0.9 Von Karman Ave nch St S 0.3 A 0A Teller Ave/Cantpus Dr a S 0.5 A 0.6 Teller Ave/Birch St U 12.3 B 11.6 Jamboree R/I/Main St a S 0.9 E 1.0 [20 Jamboree Rd2-405 NB Ramps a. S 0.7 C 1.0 Jamboree Rd/I -405 SB Ramps a. S 1.1 ... F I.0 E Jamboree Rd/Michelson Dr a S 0.8 D 1.2 3emboree RdtDupant Dr a S 0.8 C 0,8 C 24 Jamboree Rd/Campus Dr a S 0.8 D 0.9 D 25 Jamboree Rd/Birch St S 0.6 B 0.7 C 26 Jamboree Rd/Fairchild Rd a S 0.7 C 0.8 C 27 Jamboree Rd/Bristol St North S 0.4 A 0,6 A 28 Jamboree Rd/Bristol St South S 0.6 A 0.6 B 29 Jamboree Rd/Bayview Way S 0.4 A 0.5 A 30 Jamboree RdlUnivemity Dr S 03 B 03 B 31 Carlson Ave/Micholson Dr a S 0.6 B 09 D 32 Carlson Ave/Campus Dr a S 0.7 B 01 D 33 Harvard AvelMichelson Dr S 0.8 C 1.0 E I 34 Campus Dr/Bristol St North S 0.5 A 0.7 C 35 Birch StfBristol St North S 0.5 A 0.6 A 36 Campus Dr /Bristol St South S 1 0.6 B 03 A 37 Birch St/Bristol St South S 0.4 A 1 0.4 A 38 Bayview PUBristol St South S 0.4 A 0.5 A 39 Irvine Ave /Mesa Dr S 0.4 A 0.6 A 40 University Dr /Campus Dr S 0.9 D 0.9 D 41 Mosa lid/University Dr S 0.6 B 0.9 D 42 Califmnia Ave/University Dr S 0.7 B 0.7 C 43 Birch StlLhivewa S 8.8 A Notes: a =Intersx€ioa is located witientbe twine Bayonne Ccsphe,Viidce Piaa Area(LOS E Aceeptidde) b m Change County Congestion Mamgnment foram (CMP) intcreectiun (LOS 2 Acceptable) S s Signalized, UeUnsignahzed &old values iadicam saimcbms opening at an uneceeptable LOS. Intersd:tion operation is TK)pmsed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unrign thwil uatorsections tiling HCM 2000 Mathodolo and is TPOPrused in volumeto•cepac' bolt) for signekvnd imcuenaicas using ICU Methodology. Uptown Newport Project .57- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 C m v F m u�r =o N m m Y m m G m C m 6 0 O©{! rr U) w O S3 W Ci x e� a Q w 0 nom. J LL LL O P 0 2 v w N v c� N � N Jlt. —.uw � o 11t mr,»g � �rr la �zit"�aaa E� r rr �hrrr Q s f,, n ry E. lK JSL �� m K 6 11Lr6'sri `",m'Htl i %� J1L �5- (w£I„t a'°aw�i' �°m 31 H6 dlir, F Whv QR �8 JJL +`;1pMt R -i` Li 4fr lltr� I.YMm.�3t ,u «,ggzgg � l mm Fill, illy JlLrmn¢re a rr la �" 14„-ne r-7E 11L`—rou rr. JSL,r�um rr d "'3 a 1l6,`,un m1 lag .� rr Tt pxszU tom,-, as �:'zj 1 ESL"',° 1lr�wsw ldtrm TVE, r a r troy r r s ,�� r r �, T r s s� � � - � r E _� r r ��,. R� «, � � � �� »�,. pi U) w O S3 W Ci x e� a Q w 0 nom. J LL LL O P 0 2 v w N v c� N � N ca O fl O u. k-w 2 Z Z z ZO Z z z z Z. Z' ZO z 7 ZO ZO Z: z z z Z, 7! z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2- z zo z zo Z, Z* z w��"0000R000 ao 66 000cid ocv 000cao 000doaoRo I I 'Zi Z 6! 0 w w < < w u m < w w m w < < w wsipgUU¢Kid m w a W T) eo 1 U 0 m I: rn I rz u m aim¢xUmd¢pV ¢¢¢dmwUCq'pUpmcs -e. < m cowU F W Iq IAR r 1. GS N u w6 CpUdUd 6iGmU3xpUpalU d¢ drat �Iw ca O fl O u. k-w 2 y{ N Is as I Q �a C1n {�w W 4 k^" .p �a y' V CY p. � U C. pazzzzzzz7zz :g C 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 O z z z z z a°o o a o o o °o a vNi. c°•i E A �gy O qp �g A 0 V C4 g o o d o 0 o d o PA M gip+ ,; A ga 6dp]dd6AtA a1m v v ON d C- wpm � aE. W 5 O Z cw) ",y 9 F%i O d � q c� O d G n OO a O on O d O a. O 6 O h ... Fa o¢ d m d d¢ A ro w d s U m a df zg- w 8 N q v+ h d v a v o o 6 d o oao 6 oo & �x � x �w m y � 3 ,Ynn b� L a O a V u mu m W Z M U ,$$ p a 3 9 L C M h M d M h M ao M ati M o C V Wes' H a •� va p ;aa y{ N Is as I Q �a C1n {�w W 4 k^" .p �a y' V CY p. � U CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was established in 1991, to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects. A copy of the County of {range CMP Highway System is provided in Appendix G. Within the project study area, the CMP Highway System includes two arterials: Jamboree Road north of MacArthur Boulevard, and MacArthur Boulevard south of Jamboree Road. CMP intersections in the vicinity of the project consist of. 1405 Northbound Ramps I Jamboree Road e 1405 Southbound Ramps ( Jamboree Road • MacArthur Boulevard/ Jamboree Road The Orange County CMP states that "a TIA will be required for CMP purposes for all proposed developments generating 2,400 or more daily trips," and that "for developments which will directly access a CMP Highway System link, the threshold for requiring a TIA should be reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day. The project is estimated to generate over 8,000 daily trips, and will take access directly onto Jamboree Road, which is a CMP facility. As such, the project is required to comply with the CMP Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. The study area for a CMP analysis is defined by a measure of the project's significant impact on the roadway links. Significant impact is defined as links impacted by 3 percent or more of their LOS "E" capacity. The CMP states. that, "If a TIA is required only for CMP purposes, the study area would end when traffic falls below three percent of capacity on individual roadway links. If the TIA is also required for other purposes, additional analysis can be required by the local jurisdiction based on engineering judgment or local regulation as applicable. The forecasted daily project traffic volumes and LOS E percentages on the CMP facilities at the project study limits are shown on the CMP map in Appendix G. This demonstrates that the project daily trips do not exceed 3% of the Level of Service E capacity of these facilities, and that the traffic impact analysis is in compliance with CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements. The project impact at the CMP intersections was summarized in the previous section. The addition of project traffio will not cause a significant impact at the CMP intersections. The project would not cause a CMP intersection to fall below LOS E, and will not cause a cumulative increase of more than 0.10 in V/C ratio at any CMP intersection with an established LOS standard worse than LOS E. Uptown Newport Project -61- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Ina Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 ANALYSIS OF STATE HIGHWAY FACILITIES Intersections on State Highway Facilities Intersections on State Highway facilities, which are controlled by Caltrans, are also analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, as required by the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (State of California Department of Transportation, December 2002). In dte vicinity of the project, I-405 and SR -73 are Caltrans facilities. Therefore, study intersections on or adjoining to these roadways will also be analyzed using the HCM intersection analysis methodology. Caltrans advocates the use of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection analysis methodology to analyze the operation of signalized intersections. The HCM methodology measures average seconds of delay per vehicle based on a number of technical parameters, such as peak hourly traffic volumes, number of lanes, type of signal operation, signal timing, and signal phasing in the calculations. A description of each Level of Service, based on delay parameters, per the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is provided in the chart on the following page. For State - controlled intersections, Level of Service standards and impact criteria specified by Caltrans will apply. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that " Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target Level of Service at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" on State highway facilities. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the target LOS, the existing Level of Service is to be maintained," Traffic Impact Criteria The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies does not establish a threshold of significance for State Highway intersections. This traffic analysis uses the following traffic threshold of significance: A significant project impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection when the addition of project - generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E, or F). Uptown Newport Project -62- Kin ley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Level of Service -- Signalised Intersection _ Description Delay (see) LOS A describes operations with a control delay of 10 seconds per vehicle or less and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than I This level is typically assigned when A :S10 the volume -to- capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. If it is due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping. LOS S describes operations with control delay between 10 and 20 seconds per vehicle B > I0 and <_ 20 and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to- capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. LOS C describes operations with control delay between 20 and 35 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the progression is favorable and the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle C > 20 and 5 35 failures (i.c., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with control delay between 35 and 55 seconds per vehicle D > 35 and <_ 55 and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned i when the volume -to- capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E describes operations with control delay between 55 and 80 seconds per vehicle E > 55 and 84 and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to- capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. individual cycle failures are frequent, LOS E describes operations with control delay exceeding 80 seconds per vehicle or a F > 80 volume -to- capacity ratio greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume -to- capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Many vehicles fail to clear the queue. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 Uptown Newport Project -63- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study —DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 State Highway Intersection Analysis Peak hour intersection analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology for the following State Highway study intersections: f 2. MacArthur Boulevardl1-405 NB Ramps • 3. MacArthur Boulevardt1-405 SB Ramps 20. Jamboree Roadt1-405 NB Ramps 21. Jamboree Roadf1405 SR Ramps Intersection analysis worksheets for all HCM analysis of State Highway intersections are provided in Appendix E. )~Along Conditions Existing peak hour intersection operations for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table IS_ Each of the State Highway study intersections currently operates at an acceptable Level of Service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. Year 2018 Cumulative Co ditions without Project Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 16. Each of the State Highway study intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service under Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project using the HCM delay analysis methodology. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I This scenario adds project- related peak hour traffic volumes for Phase 1 of the project to the Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project traffic volumes at the State Highway study intersections. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 17. With the addition of project traffic, the State Highway study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 18, All State Highway study intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project scenario, except one intersection. The intersection of Jamboree Road at 1-405 Southbound Ramps is forecasted to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. Uptown Newport Project -64- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT - -NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 sear 2021 Cumulative Conti 'ons wjtp Proposed Project This scenario adds project - related peak hour traffic volumes for the fill uptown Newport project to the Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project traffic volumes at the State highway study intersections. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Proposed Project peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 19. With the addition of project traffic, all State Highway study intersections, except one, would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. The intersection of Jamboree Road at I-405 Southbound Ramps would continue to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. In some cases, the project - related impact would be slightly negative (i,e,, a slight improvement in average delay). This is because the conversion of land use from office to residential uses results is a shift in traffic patterns, and in some cases, the reduction in existing office trips on some critical movements would more than offset the addition of the proposed residential trips. As a result, some intersection operations would improve slightly with the implementation of the proposed project, Uptown Newport Project -65- Kimley -Born and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 15 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection. U!S Peak Hour PM Peak Hoar Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 2 MacArthur Bivd/1 -405 NB Ramps S .5 C 21.1 C 3 MacArthur Blvd/1-405 SB Ramps S .8 P14.9 B 19.3 B 20 Jamboree Rd4 -405 NB Ramps S B 8.8 A 21 Jamboree Rdti-405 SB Ramps S .9 C I7.8 B Notes; W S = Signalsaed Bold and shaded values indicate intersections upending at LOS E or F. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hoar for signalized intersections using tlu HCM 2000 Methodology, Uptown Newport Project -66- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 16 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF STATE HIGHWAY IN'T'ERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2018 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection U/S ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay Lips 2 MacArthur Blvd/1405 NB Ramps S 21.0 C 14.4 B I MacArthur Blvd /1-405 SB Ramps S 20.0 C 20.8 C 20 Jamboree Rd/I -405 NB Ramps S 18.4 B 11.1 S 21 Jamboree Rd/1405 SB Ramps S 48.4 D 26.2 C Notes: S =Signalized' Bald and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOSE or F. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology. Uptown Newport Project -67- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 u N o .N .d, T U yO 6 CA L m b u I H ca .V-. W a O w O z w a �b 0 H G O C z z z u u oGo z z z ..77gU _ M r N d on w U _ z M � O m u m u O a � Q a N N F W O i Rai a So cc � o� �� V wo�z O c a7 V m V - ow r/i U c O V U m 0 - O i�N^Qiy N m Nj � �y U d N m v v W Fi ti N 5 0 � VJ V� Vl VJ � x0 Ea o m FG (K w a m N M N fV 2 N u N o .N .d, T U yO 6 CA L m b u I H ca .V-. W a O w O z w a �b 0 H G O TABLE 18 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak hour Intersection UPS ICU/ Delay Los ICU/ Delay LOS 2 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 NB Ramps S 21.6 C 20.4 C 3 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 SB Ramps S 20.4 C 21.5 C 20 .Jamboree Rd/£ -405 NB Ramps S 18.9 B 12.3 B 21 Jamboree Rd/1 -405 SB Ramps S 60.8 R 28.5 C Notes: S = Signalized Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at SAS E or F. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology. Uptown Newport Project -69- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 IN I O ti it spa U c. 0 z 0 z 0 z 0 z IN I O ti it spa U Freeway Mainline Analysis Analysis of freeway mainline segments in the vicinity of the project was conducted in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which specifies application of the HCM methodology for freeway analysis. Freeway analysis results are expressed in terms of density, which measures the number of passenger cars per lane mile (pcimi/br) on the freeway mainline. The target Level of Service (LOS) for freeway mainline segments is LOS "D," which is a density of between 35 and 45 pclmilln. If the existing density exceeds the target LOS, the existing Level of Service is to be maintained. Freeway mainline analysis was conducted on the I405 Freeway (San Diego Freeway) between Culver Drive and the SR -55 Freeway and on the SR -73 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) between Bonita Canyon Drive and the SR -55 Freeway. Peak hour freeway volumes were derived from the Caltrans website. The most recent data available was 2010. A conservative growth factor of 1.0% per year was applied to 2010 traffic volumes to derive Existing and Future Year cumulative baseline traffic volumes. Freeway analyses were conducted using the HCS+ software, operational methodology. The results of the analysis are expressed in terms of vehicular density in each peak hour, in each direction, as discussed above. All freeway analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix F. A summary of the results of the freeway mainline analysis for each study scenario are presented below. Existing Conditions Existing peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the morning and evening peak hours, by segment, and by direction for the 11105 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Tables 20 and 21, respectively. These tables indicate that the following freeway segments are currently operating at below the target level of service: • I -405 (San Diego Freeway) Northbound • Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (LOSE: AM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jet. SR -55 (LOS E: AM peak hour) • 1-405 (San Diego Freeway) Southbound • MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road (LOS E: PM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to Culver Drive (LOS E: PM peak hour) • SR -73 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) Northbound o Jamboree Road to Jet. SR -55 (LOSE: PM peak hour) All other study freeway segments are currently operating at LOS D or better during both peak hours. Uptown Newport Project -71- Kimley -Bum and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR 1-405 FISTING CONDITIONS (2011) Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vnlume (pUce/mUln) LOS Volume (P ensitn) LOS I -405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 12,744 33.1 D 9,356 24.3 C Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 13,475 35.0 E 9,893 25.7 C MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mes 6 13,749 35.7 E 10,094 26.2 D 1-405 Southbound 1 JC Rte. 55, Costa Mesa Fr to MacArthur Boulevard 6 10,663 273 D 13,041 319 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 10,450 32.6 D 12,781 399 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 9,884 30.8 D 12,088 373 E Uptown Newport Project -72- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 21 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2011) Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density dmilln) LOS Volume malty (De'n"n) LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr(Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,579 14.0 B 3,520 19,1 C Jamboree Road to JCT. Rte, 55 4 6,892 27.5 D 9,405 37,5 E SR -73 Soutbbound JCT, Rte. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 7,737 30,8 D 7,250 28.9 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn DrlFord Rd 3 2,896 £ 5.8 B 2,714 14,8 B Uptown Newport Project -73- Kimley- -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 Existing Conditions with the FuII Proiect Existing plus Project peak hour freeway volumes were derived by adding the traffic from the full Uptown Newport project to the existing volumes. Results for the morning and evening peak hours, by segment, and by direction for the 1 -405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Tables 22 and 23, respectively.. These tables indicate that all previously - deficient segments would continue to be deficient; no new freeway segments would become deficient. ear 2018 Cumulative Cgnditions without 1�7o'ect Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions consists of Existing plus Growth plus Committed and Cumulative Projects traffic. Year 2018 Cumulative without Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the I -405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Tables 24 and 25, respectively. These tables indicate that the following freeway segments are forecast to operate at below the target level of service: • I -405 (San Diego Freeway) Northbound • Culver Drive to Jamboree Road (LOS E: AM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E: AM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jet. SR -55 (LOSE: AM peak hour) • I -405 (San Diego Freeway) Southbound • Jet. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard (LOSE: PM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road (LOSE: PM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to Culver Drive (LOS E: PM peak hour) • SR -73 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) Northbound o Jamboree Road to Jet. SR -55 (LOSE: PM peak hour) Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 Traffic from Phase I of the project was added to Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project conditions. 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the I-405 and SR -73 freeway are summarized on Tables 26 and 27, respectively. These tables indicate that all previously- deficient segments would continue to be deficient, and that the proposed project would have little impact on the analyzed freeway segments. The addition of project - related traffic would not cause additional freeway segments to operate at LOS E or worse, and would not cause the Level of Service to worsen on any segment already operating at LOS E or worse. Uptown Newport Project -74- Kimley -Flom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DtSTRTBUITON May, 2012 TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERA'T'ION FOR 1 -405 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2011) PLUS FULL PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density (pchnilln) LOS Volume Density (PCIa"o) LOS I405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 12,755 33.2 D 9,435 24.5 C Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 13,504 35.1. E 9,900 25.7 C MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Masi 6 13,824 35.9 E 10,125 26.3 D I-405 Southbound JCT. Rte, 55, Costa Mesa Fr to MacArthur Boulevard 6 10,672 27.7 D 13,119 34.1 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 10,447 32.6 D 12,811 40.0 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 9,959 31.1 D 12,123 37.8 E Uptown Newport Project -75- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 23 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2011) PLUS FULL PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density (peJmvto) LOS Volume Density (pctmitin) LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,579 14.0 B 3,520 193 C Jamboree Road to JCT. Rte. 55 4 6,992 27.9 D 9,450 37.7 F SR•73 Southbound JCT. Rte. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 7,737 30.8 D 7,357 293 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 1 3 1 2,896 15.8 B 2,714 14.8 B Uptown Newport Project -16- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR 1 -405 201$ CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Valnme llenstty ctmiM) LOS Volume I Density LOS (pc{mi/in} I -405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 13,6$$ 1 35.6 1 £ 1 10,049 1 26.1 1 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,447 37.6 E 10,607 27.6 D MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mes 6 14,752 3$.3 £ 10,830 28.1 D 1405 Southbound JCT, Rte. 55, Costa Mesa to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,441 29.7 D 13,942 36A E MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,204 34.9 D 13,703 423 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 10,616 33.1 D 12,485 403 E Uptown Newport Project -77- Kunley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 2S SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 2018 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes rlM Peak Hour FM Peak Hour Volume Density (pclmilln) LOS Volume Density J miM LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr/Ford Rd. to Jamboree Road 3 2,7b5 15.D B 3,811 20.7 C Jamboree Road to JCT. Rtc. 55 4 7,404 29.5 D 10,207 40.7 13 SR -73 Southbound JCT. Rte. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 8,312 33.1 D 7,857 31A D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr/Ford Rd 3 3,105 16,9 B 2,939 16.0 B Uptown Newport Project -78- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 26 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR 1405 2018 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH PHASE I Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume D asky LOS Volume 0"115"} LOS I.405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 13,696 35.6 E 10,095 26.2 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,468 37.6 E i0,616 27.6 D MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mesa Fury 6 14,794 38.4 E 10,851 28.2 D I -405 Southbound JCT. Rte, 55, Costa Mesa Fwy to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,448 29.7 D 14,614 36.4 E MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,206 34.9 D 13,726 42.8 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 10,658 33.2 D 13,031 40.6 E Uptown Newport Project -79- Kimley -Ham and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Sturdy - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 2018 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH PHASE I _ Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density (pelmilin} LOS Volume Density (Ptlmifin) LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr/Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,765 15.0 B 3,8ll 20.7 C Jamboree Road to JCT. REe. 55 4 7,459 29.7 D 10,236 40.8 E SR -73 Southbound JCT. Rio. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 8,327 332 D 7,929 31.6 D Jambowo Road to Bonita CynDr(FordRd 1 3 1 3,105 16.9 B 2,939 16.D B Uptown Newport Project -go- Kim€ey -Isom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study -DRAFT -NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 20I2 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project Year 2021 Cumulative without Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the I-405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Tables 28 and 29, respectively. These tables indicate that the following freeway segments are forecast to operate at below the target level of service; • 1 -405 (San Diego freeway) Northbound • Culver Drive to Jamboree Road (LOS E: AM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E. AM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jet. SR-55 (LOSE: AM peak hour) • 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) Southbound • Jet. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard (LOSE: PM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road (LOS E: AM and PM peak hours) • Jamboree Road to Culver Drive (LOSE: PM peak hour) • SR -73 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) Northbound o Jamboree Road to Jet. SR -55 (LOSE: PM peak hour) Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project Traffic from the full Uptown Newport project was added to Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project conditions. 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the I-405 and SR -73 freeway are summarized on Tables 30 and 31, respectively. These tables indicate that all previously - deficient segments would continue to be deficient, and that the proposed project would have little impact on the analyzed freeway segments. The addition of project - related traffic would not cause additional freeway segments to operate at LOS E or worse, and would not cause the Level of Service to worsen on any segment already operating at LOS E or worse. Uptown Newport P r o j e c t - S 1 - Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 28 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FORT -405 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume (p luiillu) LOS Volume Density LOS 1 -405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 14,103 36.7 E 10,354 26.9 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,885 38.7 E 10,928 28.4 D MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mes 6 15,198 39.5 E 11,258 29.0 D I405 Southbound JCT. Rte, 55, Costa Mesa to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,787 30.6 D 14,416 37.5 E MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Rood 5 11,543 36.0 E 14,118 44.0 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 10,938 34.1 D 13,378 4L? E Uptown Newport Project -82- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 29 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR-73 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT: PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume (p fm�pn) LOS Volume �u LOS SR -73 Northbound Donna Cyn DrtFard Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,849 153 1 B 3,927 Jamboree Road to JCT. Rte. 55 4 7 „629 30.4 D 10,516 41.9 F. SR -73 Southbound JCT. Rte. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 8,564 342 D 8,106 32.3 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr/Ford Rd 3 3,199 -17.4 1 B 3,028 16.5 B Uptown Newport Project -83- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 Uptown Newport Project -94- Kimley -Born and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 30 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR i-405 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH FULL PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour Density Vnlnme ctmiltn) LOS PM Peak Hour Yotume Density {prtmitin} LOS I405 Northbound CulverCufw to Jamboree Road 6 1 14,114 36.7 E 10,433 27.1 1 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,914 38,8 E 10,935 28.4 D MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rto. 55, Costa MesaFwy 6 JS >273 39.7 E 11,1.89 29.7 D 1-405 Southbound JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mesa Fwy to MacArthur Boulevard 6 1.1,796 30.7 D 14,494 37.7 E MacArthur Boulevard to Jambmm Road 5 11,544 36.0 E 14,148 44.1 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 l I,OI3 34.4 D 13,413 41.8 E Uptown Newport Project -94- Kimley -Born and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TABLE 3I SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH FULL PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Yotame {Density tn) LAS Volume {D I LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita C➢n Dr/FordRd to Jamboree Road 3 2,$49 15.5 B 3,927 21.4 C lamtroree Raed to ICT, Rte. 55 4 7,729 36.$ D 10,552 42.1 E SR -73 Southbound JCT. Ric. 55 to Iambmn Road 4 $,554 1 342 D 8,21, 32.1 D 7ambaree Raud to Bonita Cyn Dr/F`prd Rd 3 3,199 17.4 B 3,028 16,5 B Uptown Newport Project -85. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. TWTtc Impact Study - DRAFT- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 SITE ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION Existing Circulation Currently, access to the existing project site is provided at two locations along Jamboree Road and one Location along Birch Street. On Jamboree Road, access to the site is via a four -way signalized intersection at Jamboree Road and Fairchild Drive, with the project site entrance forming the fourth leg of the intersection, and a stop - controlled intersection approximately 800 feet north of the signalized intersection. The unsignalized intersection currently allows all turning movements to and from Jamboree Road, On Birch Street, access to the site is provided at a stop - controlled intersection approximately 560 feet west of the signalized intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street. All turning movements are allowed at this driveway. Access to this driveway from the Conexant property is via an access easement across the adjacent property immediately to the north (between the Conexant property and Birch Street.) Phase I Circulation The proposed circulation for Phase I is shown on Figure 21. The proposed Upper Newport project would continue to access Jamboree Road at two points. The existing signalized intersection at Fairchild Road would remain. The uttsignalized intersection to the north would be relocated approximately 175 feet to the north. This entrance would allow right- tum -in- and -out and left-turn in movements. Left turns out would be prohibited by signage, as well as a raised median on Jamboree Road. The main signalized entry is shown to be 46 feet wide with one inbound lane, and two outbound lanes. The on -site roadways would be 36 feet wide with sidewalks on both sides, and would provide direct access to the parking areas associated with each building. The internal street system, as shown, is in compliance with City policy that requires a minimum of 36 feet curb to curb for private streets with parking on both sides of the street, and a minimum of 32 feet for streets with no parking, or parking on one side of the street. The roadway system would be privately owned and maintained, but would be open to the public. A gated emergency only access to the adjacent Koll property would be provided at the southwest corner of the site. Connections to the adjacent Jazz property would also be gated„ as shown on Figure 20. Therefore, there would be no access from the Phase I Uptown Newport development to the Birch Street driveway. Phase 2 Circulation The proposed circulation for Phase 2 is shown on Figure 22. With development of the entire site, the roadway system would be expanded to include access to the rest of the site, and re- connection to Birch Street, via the access easement across the adjacent property. A discussion of this easement and the impact of the project traffic on the Birch Street driveway is provided in the next section. Uptown Newport Project -86- Kimiey -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT - -NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 Q $ Y � w" a Z � t w � m Gnu 4 cl, l 4 1.{w t/�_�� +V\ R W w w (n 0 y^r LL W 4 ---------- A I' n U0 a h z 5 0 F- 51 D 0 w :5 Q i 7. CL. The main signalized entry on Jamboree Road at Fairchild is shown to provide approximately 300 feet of queuing before the 90- degree turn in the road. With two outbound lanes, this would provide sufficient queuing distance before the 90- degree bend to accommodate the project's outbound peak hour traffic for both Phase I and Phase 2. The site plan shows diagonal parking adjacent to the retail portion of the project; on one side of the main entry drive (the inbound lane) and on both sides of the spine street after the 90- degree bend. The diagonal parking on the main entry drive is located less than 100 feet of Jamboree Road, which means that a car backing out of the spaces nearest Jamboree Road would potentially block the inbound lane momentarily, leaving only two or three car lengths of inbound lane distance. Likewise, the diagonal parking on the main spine is located within 50 feet of the 90- degree bend, posing a potential sight distance problem. The location, operation, and configuration of the parking and drive aisles in this area should be reviewed carefully with City staff during the site plan review process. Access Easement to Birch Street The access easement across the adjacent property that allows access from the Conexant property to Birch Street has been in place for over 30 years. The project access plans indicate that the project would not have access to the Birch driveway during Phase 1, but would have access to Birch Street through the easement at completion of the project. This discussion has been prepared to provide a comparison of existing and proposed peak hour traffic volumes and an evaluation of level of service at this driveway. Current peak hour turning movement traffic volumes at the Birch Street driveway are shown on Figure 23. This intersection is currently operating at LOS A in the morning peak hour and LOS B in the evening peak hour. The peak hour turning movement volumes reflect the predominance of employment uses on the site, with very light outbound traffic volumes and heavier traffic flows inbound in the morning peak hour, with a reverse pattern in the evening peak hour. A component of this traffic would be removed with the development of the Uptown Newport project, and replaced with residential traffic flows. As discussed earlier, residential uses would have the reverse traffic patterns — heavier traffic flow outbound from the project site in the morning peak hour, and heavier traffic flow inbound toward the project in the evening peak hour. With removal of the two existing office and industrial buildings, and development of the proposed residential uses, the morning and evening peak hour turning movement volumes at the Birch Street driveway would be as shown on Figure 22. Comparison of the two shows that the traffic flows would be reversed compared to existing, with an increase in outbound traffic and a decrease in inbound traffic in the morning peak hour, with a reverse pattern in the evening peak hour. The intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS B and C in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The driveway would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service as an unsignalized intersection. The intersection would accommodate the changes in traffic patterns resulting from the proposed project, and would not require signalization or widening. Uptown Newport Project -89- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study —DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 L--- 46/19 21125 y � co PROJECT SITE Existing driveway Volumes In and Out of the Project Site 1� —30155 PROJECT SITE Future With Project Driveway Volumes In and Out of the Project Site LEGEND: xxlyy AM /PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes FIGURE 23 Birch Street c`a W� 3146---3 6/15 -"-A C m u E i M CY (A) NOT TO SCALE N �f I F-1110 2118 __ „�! 1� Fairchild Road 0/3 — 1111 'y Birch Street 34/33 38164 K E A (A) NOT TO SCALE co ccr cv <— 6127 Fairchild Road 5/30 --> �) 264/244 N 40 lKtmley -Ham and Assoclate% Inc. s CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC The Project construction activities would include the demolition of the existing office ? industrial buildings on site and the construction of the proposed Uptown Newport development. Construction activities would include site clearing, grading and excavation, and construction of structures and site features. Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and pavers would be required during various construction phases. Large equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the construction phase and kept on site until its term of use ends. A staging area would be designated on- site to store construction equipment and supplies during construction. Throughout construction, the size of the work crew reporting to the site each day would vary depending on the construction phase and the different construction activities taking place at the time. Parking for workers would he provided on -site during all phases of construction. Construction workers would not be allowed to park on local streets. If needed during the peak construction periods, off-site parking will be provided, and workers will carpool or be shuttled to the worksite. Phase I will include demolition of the 4311 Jamboree Road office and industrial building and support facilities. Demolition activities will include demolishing and removing the building, foundations and footings, and the asphalt parking lot and light fixtures. It is estimated that approximately 12,800 cubic yards of construction debris and concrete will need to be removed from the site. Grading of the Phase I portion of the site will involve a combination of cut and fill activity, such that there will be a virtual balance of out and fill on the site. This assumes a single level of underground parking. If a second underground level is needed, an estimated 90,000 cubic yards would need to be exported from the site. Assuming a capacity of 12 to 18 cubic yards per truckload, depending on the size of the truck, demolition and grading activities will require removal of approximately 700 to 1,070 truckloads of demolition debris, and if needed, 5,000 truckloads of cut material. Assuming a three -month period for demolition for Phase 1, this would equate to an average of 10 to 20 demolition debris truckloads per day, and if needed, an average of approximately 40 to 60 truckloads of export out material per day, Phase 2 will include demolition of the Jazz building at 4321 Jamboree Road. It is estimated that approximately 13,000 cubic yards of construction debris and concrete will need to be removed from the site. Grading of the Phase 2 portion of the site will involve a combination of cut and fill activity, such that there will be a virtual balance of cut and fill on the site. This assumes a single level of underground parking. if a second underground level is needed, an estimated 100,000 cubic yards would need to be exported from the site. Assuming a four -month period for demolition for Phase 2, this would equate to an average of 10 to 15 demolition debris truckloads per day, and if needed, an average of approximately 45 to 65 truckloads of export cut material per day. Based on the project phasing plan, building construction activity is estimated to be 54 months for Phase 1, and 45 months for Phase 2. The number of heavy vehicles associated with building construction will vary, depending on the construction materials required for the phase of construction underway at any given time. Uptown Newport Project -91- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT—NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 Construction Phase--- at TrL Demolition —Phase 1 - Heavy Trucks (Haul Debris) 6-10 - Construction Workers 9-15 Demolition — Phase 2_ - Heavy Trucks 6-10 Construction Workers 9-15 _ Grading and Earthwork —Phase I - Haul Export Vehicles (if needed) 40-60 - Construction Workers 30 -42 Grading and Earthwork —Phase 2LL _ ^ -- Haul Export Vehicles (if needed) 45-65 Construction Workers 1 Vendors 32-46 Building Construction — Phase I - - Construction Workers ( Vendors r 289 Building Construction — Phase 2 Construction Workers/ Vendors' 289 Source: SCAQMD Building Construction Worker and Vendor Trip Study For each construction phase, the construction traffic volumes would be less than the current site traffic that will be eliminated when the ,project construction begins, and would he less than the future project traffic to be generated by the proposed project that has been the focus of this analysis. Heavy vehicles associated with demolition and construction would use the existing regional and local truck route network to approach the site, getting as close to the destination site as possible before turning off the designated truck route. The Applicant will be required to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles, and obtain a Haul Route permit from the City. Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles will be via Jamboree Road. Depending on the origin/destination (the nearest landfill, or the deposit site identified for cut material), trucks will either arrive and depart on Jamboree Road via the I- 405 Freeway, to the north of the site; or Jamboree Road via the SR -i3 Freeway, to the south of the site. Temporary delays in traffic may occasionally occur due to oversized vehicles traveling at lower speeds on local streets. Such delays would be occasional, and of short duration, These temporary delays would be considered less than significant. The project will be required to prepare a construction traffic management plan, which could include such things as requiring an encroachment permit for work in the public right-of- way, limiting heavy truck activity during peak hours, using flag men to manage short-term traffic control, requiring a formal traffic control plan for extended street and lane closures, limiting time and duration of closures, or requiring a minimum number of lanes be open for travel during peak hours. ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL MODES The Uptown Newport project will consist of the development of 1,244 residential units and 11,500 square feet of commercial development. The introduction of residential units in an area that is largely developed Uptown Newport Project -92- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 with employment and commercial uses will facilitate the use of alternative travel modes, such as walking, biking, and public transit. The close proximity of a residential use to employment and commercial centers can serve as encouragement to the residents of the development to walk or bike to work or shop, rather than drive a vehicle. In order to encourage alternative modes of travel, and to help people to feel comfortable walking and biking, the project will also include traffic calming measures. The project Resign Guidelines encourage the use of street chokers on internal streets to slow traffic, development of pedestrian -scale streets on the internal street system, and the use of enhanced paving at pedestrian connections to draw attention to the presence of pedestrians. Public Transit Existing transit service in the project vicinity was described earlier in the report, and the transit routes are depicted on Figure S. Transit service is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) which offers service to destinations in Irvine and Newport Beach, as well as cities throughout Orange County. The transit routes that serve the project area are already serving a significant employment -based area. As such, the transit schedules and frequencies are geared toward commuter needs, and will be convenient for residents of the Uptown Newport project, as commuters who will need early morning and mid - evening service in order to find public transit a convenient way to get to and from work. Bus stops for most of the transit routes are located within one - quarter to one -half mile of the main entrance to the project site. OCTA routes serving the site provide frequent connections to UCI, the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), John Wayne Airport, the Newport Transportation Center, and multiple other large and small shopping and employment centers. Pedestrian The Uptown Newport project will provide sidewalks throughout the project site, with multiple connections to the public street system and adjacent properties: - Sidewalks will be provided along both sides of the main entry at Jamboree Road, leading directly to the crosswalks through the signalized intersection, which connect to Fairchild Road; - Sidewalks will be provided along both sides of the secondary, unsignalized entry on Jamboree Road; - A third sidewalk connection to Jamboree Road will be provided between the two entry drives; - Sidewalks and pedestrian connections will he provided at several different locations between the project site and the adjacent Koll properties, to the west, giving residents who may work or have business "next door" a convenient path to walk there. Uptown Newport project -93- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT —NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 On -site sidewalks will typically be 5 feet wide, and separated from the roadway by a 10 -foot -wide landscaped parkway. These pedestrian connections to the surrounding area and the public street system shorten the walking distance to nearby destinations, including the nearest bus stop; and enhance the opportunity to walk or take transit, rather than drive. Walkways between buildings (paseos) create a pedestrian - oriented environment by breaking up large blocks and providing more convenient connectivity throughout the project site. Bicycles For its entire length through the City of Newport Beach, Jamboree Road is currently designated on the City of Newport Beach Bike Map as "Okay to Ride on Sidewalk ". On the City's Bikeways Master Plan, Jamboree Road is shown as a Class l (off -road paved) bikeway. A copy of the City of Newport Beach Bike Map and Bikeways Master Plan are provided in Appendix H. Along the project frontage, Jamboree Road provides a meandering sidewalk within a landscaped parkway. The Uptown Newport plan provides for implementation of a future Class 1 Bike Trail along the project frontage on Jamboree Road, consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan. Other bicycle facilities in the project vicinity include Class 2 bicycle lanes (an on -road striped lane) on Campus Drive, and the "Okay to Ride on Sidewalk" designation on Von Kaman from MacArthur Boulevard to Campus Drive, and on MacArthur Boulevard from Campus Drive to Jamboree Road. The City's 'Bikeways Master Plan shows that the Class 2 bike lanes on Campus Drive are to remain, and the bike facilities on MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karman Avenue are planned to be Class 1 bikeways. The sidewalk connections from the Uptown Newport site to Jamboree Road, and through the adjacent Kell property will provide convenient access for bicyclists to access the nearest existing and fixture bicycle facilities. Uptown Newport Project -94- Kimley -Aom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBU'T'ION May, 2012 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONICLUSIONS • The proposed Uptown Newport project site is located at the southwest comer of Jamboree Road (north -south street) and Birch Street (east -west street) in the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach. The project site occupies 25 acres within the larger Koll Center development. + The project site is currently occupied by two buildings: 4311 Jamboree Road, with 115,375 square feet of office use and 11,300 square feet of light industrial use; and 4321 Jamboree Road, with 52,947 square feet of supporting office use and 258,505 square feet of industrial use. In Phase 1, only the 4311 Jamboree office building will be removed. Phase I of the Uptown Newport project would consist of 680 of the residential units, and 11,500 square feet of commercial development, + with the full project, all buildings on site would be removed_ The full Uptown Newport project would consist of 1,244 residential units and 11,500 square feet of commercial development. • Forty -three (43) intersections were analyzed for potential traffic impacts. All intersections were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. In addition, four (4) intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to comply with Caltrans requirements. • Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. • Under Existing Plus Project Conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. + Under Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project conditions, the following intersections would operate below an acceptable level of service. 0 21. Jamboree Road at 1 -405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS P) 0 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) o 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) Under Year 2018 TPO Analysis with Phase 1 conditions, these three intersections would continue to operate below an acceptable level of service. The addition of project traffic would not cause additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, and the project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection. Uptown Newport Project _95- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT — NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 Under Year 2021 without Project conditions, the following intersections would operate below an acceptable level of service. o 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street (PM: LOS F) 0 21. Jamboree Road at I-405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F) 0 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) 0 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) Under Year 2021 with Proposed Project (Full Project) conditions, these four intersections would continue to operate below an acceptable level of service. The addition of project traffic would not cause additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, and the project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection. The traffic impact analysis was conducted in accordance with the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and is in compliance with the Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements of the CMP. The project would not cause a CMP intersection to fall below LOS E, and would not cause a cumulative increase of more than 0.10 in VIC ratio at any CMP intersection with an established LOS standard worse than LOS E. • A separate analysis of intersections on State Highways was conducted in accordance with Caitrans requirements. Intersection and freeway analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (RCM) methodology, in accordance with the Cabrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. • Based on the HCM intersection methodology, the addition of project - related traffic to State Highway intersections would not cause additional intersections to operate at LOS D or worse, and would not cause the Level of Service to worsen at any intersection already operating at LOS D or worse. • Freeway segments on the I-405 and SR -73 were evaluated based on the Caltrans freeway segment analysis methodology. The results show that the addition of project - related traffic would not cause additional freeway segments to operate at LOS E or worse, and would not cause the Level of Service to worsen on any segment already operating at LOS E or worse. • Access to the site is currently provided via two entrances on Jamboree Road; and one driveway on Birch Street, via an access easement across the adjacent property immediately to the north, • Access for Phase i would be provided by two driveways on Jamboree Road. Phase 1 would not have access to the Birch Street driveway. Access for Phase 2 (the Full Project) would be provided via the two driveways on Jamboree Road, and access to the Birch Street driveway via the access easement would be restored. Uptown Newport Project -96- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study — DRAFT— NOT FOR, PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May. 2012 The project site plan shows diagonal parking and a 90- degree tam on the main signalized envy road near Jamboree Road. The location, operation, and configuration of the parking and drive aisles along the train entrance road should be reviewed carefully with City staff during the site plan review process. For the various construction phases, construction traffic volumes will be less than the traffic volumes currently generated by the existing site uses, and less than the future traffic volumes to be generated by the proposed project. The project will be required to submit a proposed haul route plan for approval by the City, and will be required to comply with construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flag men for short -term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures. The project will incorporate physical and design features to encourage alternative modes of travel, such as walling, biking, and transit. Uptown Newport Project -97- Kimley -Flom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study - DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION May, 2012 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Prepared by: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive Suite 400 Orange, California 92868 November, 2012 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......... ....... ...... _... PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....... ...:.................................... .. ....... ........ ............................... Existing Site Uses and Access ...... .. ..... ... ........ ... ........ ...,.......................... Proposed Site Uses and Access ................................ ............................... STUDY METHODOLOGY ......................................... ............................... StudyArea .............................................................. ............................... Analysis Methodology... ...... ---- .............................. Performance Criteria ............................................... ............................... Threshold of Significance ......................................... ............................... City of Newport Beach ........................................ ............................... City of Irvine ..... ..... ........ .................................. ... .:..,.......................... Study Scenarios ... ............ ......................_.._........... ............................... EXISTING TRANSPORTATION Sys TEM .......... .......... ......................... Roadway Characteristics,.-. ... — ................ ......... .............. ........... Existing Transit Service .......................................... ............................... EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ........................ ............................... Existing Traffic Volumes... ... ........ ................... Existing Intersection Analysis ................................. ............................... PROJECT TRAFFIC .................................................. ............................... TripGeneration ....................................................... ............................... Existing Conexant Development Trip Generation... ........... Proposed Project Trip Generation... .... ... -- ................................... Trip Distribution and Assignment .... ...... ................. ............................... EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS,...,.........,. ... ....... .......... FUTURE CONDITIONS_ ......................................... ........_...................... Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis.... ....... _ . ............................... TPO I% Analysis... ........ Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project ................ ............................... 'FPO Analysis with Project ...................................... ............................... Year 2018 TPO Analysis with Phase I ................ ............................... Cumulative Conditions Analysis............................. .................. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project ............................. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 .. ............................... Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project ... . .......................... I ........ --- 3 ................ ............................... 8 ................ .............................10 J.... ............................... Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Full Project ............................. ............................... CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE ................. ............................... ANALYSIS OF STATE HIGHWAY FACILITIES .......................... ............. .............................. Intersections on State Highway Facilities . ......... ...... _ ........ .:................... .. ............................... Traffic Impact Criteria ............................................................................. ............................... State Highway Intersection Analysis ........................................................ ............................... ExistingConditions .............................................................................. ............................... Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project .... ............. ............:................................ Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I ................................... ............................... Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project ............................... ............................... ..........49 ......... 55 ............ 55 ... 61 ....... ,.... 6-1 ......... 62 ...... ., .... 62 ----.64 .......... ., 64 ....... ...., 64 .......... 64 ............ 64 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Proposed Project... ........... .................................... ___ ... 65 Freeway Mainline Analysis .................................................................................... .............................71 ExistingConditions .........................:.................................................................. .............................71 Existing Conditions with the Full Pro' ............................................................ .............................74 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project ........................................... ............................... 74 Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I ................................................. .............................74 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project ............................._............ ............................... 81 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Fu11 Project.. ............................. ___ 81 SITE ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION.._.....,...._ ...... .......................... ...... ...... . 86 ExistingCirculation .................................................. ........... ............... ........ ___ ..... .............. ...............86 PhaseI Circulation ............. .............. ... ................................ ................................................. .............. 86 Phase2 Circulation .............................................................................................. ............................... 86 Access Easement to Birch Street,.,,. ..... .................................. ...... ............... ....... 89 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC .................................................................................... .............................91 ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL MODES... ....................................... ............................................... ... 92 PublicTransit ......................................................................................................... .............................93 Pedestrian... ...... ....... - ............. - ... __ .............. ............................. ....... ................ ......... ........... - 93 Bicycles.................. ............................... _......................................................... .._._...._..................,.. 94 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .......... .............. ... ... .......... .......... ........... ................95 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — Traffic Data Collection Worksheets APPENDIX B — Intersection Analysis Worksheets B -1 — Existing Conditions B -2 -- Existing Plus Project Conditions B -3 — TPO Analysis without Project B -4 — TPO Analysis with Phase 1 Project B -S — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project B -6 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I B -7 — Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project B -8 -- Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project APPENDIX C — Committed and Cumulative Project Information APPENDIX D — I% Analysis Worksheets —FPO Analysis APPENDIX E— Intersection Analysis Worksheets —State Highway Analysis E -I — Existing Conditions F -2 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project E -3 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I E -4 — Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project E -5 — Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project APPENDIX F —Freeway Mainline Analysis F -I —Existing Conditions P -2 — Existing Conditions Plus Full Project F -3 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project F -4 — Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I F -S — Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project F -6 —Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project APPENDIX C. — CMP Compliance APPENDIX H — City of Newport Beach Bike Plans LIST OF FIGURES Figurel -Vicinity Moo. ... ...................... ......... ............. ................. ........ ............... ....... .......... 2 Figure2~ Project Site Plan ........... .-..,.~-............. ,............... ...................... ....... ..,___ 5 Figure �- Phase } Site Plan ...................................... ...... .........'--._....-.--,........... & Figure 4- Study Intersections ............... ... ................ .....,.,....... .-.,............ ...... .............. 7 fiou,,j - Existing Transit Routes ............ .. ....... ........... .................... ........... ............... .. .......... lj Figure 6- Existing Lane Configuration aud?ruthcCootr^|.......--.,.^....---....-..l8 Figure 7-Exobucyouk}{ou,Trufbxl/o|000e*..--.--...-_...,.-....-~...-...--.l0 Figure p Distribution Assumptions . p Figure 9- Trip Distribution Assumptions for Uptown Newport y/ojocC~ .... .._..-.~.. Figure l0- Phase l Project-Related Peak Hour TrntfiuVolumes ................. ___ ................... Figure l}- Phase 2 (Full Project) Project-Related Peak Hour Traffic l/ok/o\os................. Figure l2- Existing plus Project Peak Hour Traffic \/ouo`os. ............. ....... . ............... ._ Figure 13 - Year %Vl8TPO Analysis without Project Peak Hour Traffic \/^buucs................ Figure /4-Yeor20|8TP(}'\nolyoiombkPbuao7Peok\{"o,truffioVob'u`nn---'.... Figure lS-Locmtiouvf[uunx&athveprojuu$.,...-'--._-^--.......~.'`~...~ Figure l6- Cumulative Projects Peak 8vor?rufGol/obum)rs. ........... .-................. . Figure 17 - Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.. Figure l8- Year 20l8 Cumulative Conditions with Phase l Peak Hour Volumes .................. Figure 19 - Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project Peak Hour Traffic Volurries.. Figure 20- Year 20%} Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project Peak Hour Volumes ...... Figure 2l -Phase l Circulation Plan ......................... '___ ........ ........ ...._....'...~�.� Figure %2- Phase l Circulation Plan ........ ....... ................. .... .................. .. ................ - ___ ........ �I? -.-~--28 ..,.---29 .-.---.J] ....... ...... 35 ___ ......... 4l ......... .... -47 .-..--.48 ,..~-'50 . ........ ... J2 -----.5h ........... .... 58 .-.---X7 .-.---8& -.. ... 'YA LIST OF TABLES Table l- Summary ofIntersection Operations - Existing Condhiouo.._ ............. ...... .. .......... ...... .............. %0 Table 2- Summary nf Phase l Trip Generation ... --- ... . .... .............. ...... -'...-.'..............23 Table 3- Summary uf Full Project Trip Generation -..--..-.---.~.......-..,, --- ......24 7oh|c4-Suum�wryof[oteron(1inn0yerutiou-8xi$i Plus Project Coodiboom.. .................... ...... .......... ... 32 Table 5- Summary u/ Committed Projects ....... ............ . .... . .................. ...... ~. ............... ... .. ............... 36 Table 6- Summary ofl% Analysis -?y() Analysis .......... .......... ................ ~............................ .............. - 38 Table ?- Summary of Intersection Operations - Year 2Al8Ty() Analysis without yroioct~ ......................... .]9 Table 8- Summary ofIntersection Operations - Year 2V}8TP() Analysis with Phase l ................ ...... ...... .... 4Z Table 9- Summary vf Cumulative Projects -,,.,---.......,,.---....-.----.....---'45 Table lV- Summary of Cumulative Projects Trip GeuorNiou. ..... .................. - ........................ ................. 4o Table ll- Summary of Intersection Operations - Year 20\8 Cumulative Conditions without Project ............... 5\ Table l2- Summary vJIntersection Operation - Year 20lC Cumulative Conditions with Phase l ..... ............ 53 Table i3- Summary ofIntersection Operations ~ Year 2U2l Cumulative Conditions without Project ............... 57 Table 14 - Summary of Intersection Operation - Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project ... ..... 59 Table l5- Summary of State Highway Intersection Operations - Existing Conditions .................. ....-.66 Table lh- Summary u[ State Highway Intersection Operation - Year 20|8 Cumulative without Project ...........07 Table l7- Summary o[ State Highway Intersection Operation ~ Year 20|8 Cumulative with Phase l............... 68 Table |X- Summary vf State Highway Intersection Operation - Year Z02l Cumulative without Project ........... 69 Table l9- Summary of State I ligh`vny Intersection Operation - Year %02l Cumulative with the Full Project ... 7O Table 20- Summary of Freeway Mainline Operation for ['4O5 Freeway - Existing Conditions .................. ..72 Table 2l- Summary of Freeway Mainline Operation for S8-73 Freeway - Existing Condibono.. ................ -7] Table 22- Summary oƒ Freeway Mainline for l^405- Existing Conditions Plus Full Project ........ ... .............. 75 Table 2J- Summary ot Freeway Mainline for 8B,71- Existing Conditions Plus Full Project ....... ................... 76 Table 24~ Summary of Freeway Mainline for /^4O5- Year 2OlX Cumulative Conditions without Project ........ 77 Table 25 - Summary of Freeway Mainline for SR-73 - Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project ......�78 Table 26- Summary of Freeway Mainline for /~40j- Year 20l8 CnmulutivnCovddinuopvbbPhaoel - ...... ...79 Table 27` Summary of Freeway Mainline for SK'73- Year 20|8 Cumulative Conditions with Phase l........ -8O Table 28 - Summary of Freeway Mainline for 1-405 - Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project... .....82 Table 29 - Summary of Freeway Mainline for SR-73 - Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project ..... - 83 Table 3A- Summary o/ Freeway Mainline for l^405- Year 202| Cumulative Conditions with the Full Project 84 Table ]l- Summary of Freeway Mainline for 8K^73- Year 20.1l Cumulative Conditions with Full Projnot.... 8S TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT INTRODUCTION This traffic impact analysis has been prepared to provide air evaluation of the traffic - related impacts associated with the proposed Uptown Newport Project. This report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance CrPO} traffic impact study requirements, County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements, and in support of the environmental documentation for the project, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Uptown Newport Project site is located at the southwest corner I of Jamboree Road and Birch Street in the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach. A vicinity map is provided on Figure 1. The project site occupies 25 acres within the larger Koll Center development. Existing Site Uses and Access The project site consists of two adjoining rectangular areas. The smaller rectangular area is approximately 7 acres, and is currently developed as surface parking. The larger rectangular portion is an 18 -acre area along Jamboree Road, and is currently developed with two buildings. ! 4311 Jamboree Road (known as the "Half Dome Building ") is aone -story building with 115,375 square feet of office use and 11,300 square feet of light industrial use. • 4321 Jamboree Road (known as the "Jazz Building) is a four -story building with 52,947 square feet of supporting office use and 258,505 square feet of industrial use. Local access to the project site is e urrently provided by two driveways on Jamboree Road, and one driveway on Birch Street via an access easement through the adjoining property. The access onto .Jamboree Road consists of a four -way signalized intersection at Jamboree Road and Fairchild Drive, and a stop - controlled driveway located approximately 750 feet north of the signalized intersection. The driveway on Birch Street is a stop - controlled driveway located 560 feet to the west of the signalized intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street. ' As shown oar Figure 1, the streets adjacent to the project site are oriented on a diagonal. For purposes of this report, Jamboree Road is considered to be the north -south street, and Birch Street is considered to be the east -west street. Uptown Newport Project - t - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 -2- a LUa r� �z a_ -� V W N O v °m N ❑ E Proposed Site Uses and Access With the proposed development, the existing uses would be demolished and replaced with 1,244 residential units and 11,500 square feet of commercial development. The project will also include two small (approximately t acre cacti) on -site parks. A copy of the project site plan is provided on Figure 2. This report provides an analysis of two project phases: Phase 1, consisting of 680 residential units and 11,500 square feet of commercial: and Phase 2, which would be development of the full project. A copy of the Phase I site plan is provided on Figure 3. With the proposed development, the project would take access via two access points on Jamboree Road for Phase 1, and two access points on Jamboree Road and the existing access on Birch Street (via an access easement) for Phase 2. STUDY METHODOLOGY Study Area The traffic impact analysis for the Uptown Newport project will evaluate morning and evening peak hour operations at the following 43 existing intersections, consisting of a combination of intersections in the City of Newport Beach and the adjoining City of Irvine. No. Intersection C"iL Control I MacArthur Boulevard /Main Street hvine Signalized 2 MacArthur Boulevard /1.405 NB Ramps Irvine Signalized 3 MacArthur Boulevard/ I -405 SB Ramps Irvine Signalized 4 MacArthur Boulevard /Michelson Drive hvine Signalized 5 MacArthur Boulevard/Campus Drive hvine Signalized 6 MacArthur Boulevard/Birch Street Newport Beach Signalized 7 MacArthur Boulevard/Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach Signalized 8 MacArthur Boulevard /Jamboree Road Newport Beach Signalized 9 MacArthur Boulevard /Fairchild Road Irvine Signalized 10 MacArthur Boulevard NB Ramp /University Drive Irvine Signalized I I MacArthur Boulevard SB Ramp /University Drive Newport Beach Signalized 12 Von Karman Avenue /Main Street Irvine Signalized 13 Von Karman Avenue /Michelson Drive Irvine Signalized 14 Von Kerman Avenue/Dupont Drive Irvine Signalized 15 Von Karmen AvenuetCampus Drive Irvine Signalized 16 Von Karman Avenue /Birch Street Newport Beach Signalized 17 Teller Avenue /Campus Drive Irvine Signalized 18 Teller Avenue /Birch Street Newport Beach Stop Controlled 19 Jamboree Road/Main Street Irvine Signalized 20 Jamboree Road/1 -405 NB Ramps Irvine Signalized 21 Jamboree Road /1 -405 SB Ramps Irvine Signalized Uptown Newport Project -3 - Kinley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 1 "raffic Impact Study November, 20'12 No. Intersection CiW Control 22 Jamboree Road/Michelson Drive Irvine Signalized 23 Jamboree Road /Dupont Drive Irvine Signalized 24 Jamboree Road /Campus Drive Irvine Signalized 25 Jamboree Road /Birch Street Irvine Signalized 26 Jamboree Road/Fairchild Road Irvine Signalized 27 Jamboree Road /Bristol Street N Newport Beach Signalized 28 Jamboree Road/Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signalized 29 Jamboree Road/Bayview Way Newport Beach Signalized 30 Jamboree Road /University Drive Newport Beach Signalized 31 Carlson Avenue/Michelson Drive Irvine Signalized 32 Carlson Avenue/Bristol Street Irvine Signalized 33 Harvard Avenue /Bristol Street S Irvine Signalized 34 Campus Drive /Bristol Street N Newport Beach Signalized 35 Birch Street/Bristol Street N Newport Beach Signalized 36 Irvine Avenue /Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signalized 37 Birch Street/Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signalized 38 Bayview Place /Bristol Street S Newport Beach Signalized 39 Irvine Avenue/Mesa Drive Newport Beach. Signalized 40 University Drive/Campus Drive Irvine Signalized 41 Mesa Road /University Drive Irvine Signalized 42 California Avenge /University Drive Irvine Signalized 43 Site Driveway /Birch Street Newport Beach Stop Controlled For "shared" intersections on the boundary between the two cities, the city listed indicates the city that maintains and controls the signal. The study area and study intersection list reflect input received from the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. The location of the study intersections is shown on Figure 4. Of the 43 study intersections, 26 are controlled by the City of Irvine and 17 are controlled by the City of Newport Beach. Each intersection has been analyzed using the methodology and parameters employed by the city in which the intersection is located. F or "shared" intersections on the city boundary, the intersection analysis is based on the methodology used by the City that maintains and controls the signal. A discussion of the analysis methodology and significance criteria for each city is provided in the next section. Of the 43 study intersections, four intersections are located on State Highways, and are therefore controlled by Caltrans. A separate analysis of the Sta to Highway intersections using the analysis methodology required by Caltrans for State facilities is provided in a separate section of this report. Uptown Newport Project -4- Kintley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 illl 4,1. 11 TI 11 1 AWU 1=01(91414 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (i) NOT TO SCALE - 5 - tKimley—Horn and Associates, Inc. m Iq FIGURE 3 UPTOWN NEWPORT PHASE 1 SITE PLAN —n -- 6 _ ssoci ates, Inc. E 7� iJ Y /P dd I u c m 0 u O W Q b C O Analysis Methodology Intersection analysis for all signalized intersections has been conducted using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which is the methodology utilized by both the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine, as well as the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). (Intersections that are located at a State Highway intersection are also analyzed in accordance with Caltrans requirements, using a separate methodology, as discussed later in this report.) The ICU methodology provides a compar ison of the then retical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the number of vehicles actually passing through that intersection during any given hour. The ICU calculation assumes an hourly per -lane capacity for each lane through the intersection, and a clearance factor to account for the effect of yellow and red signal phases. Variations in analysis input parameters between the agencies have been accounted for in the analysis. The following presents the ICU parameters for each of the cities. ICU Parameter Citv of Newport Beach City of Irvine Saturation Flow Rate / Lane Capacity 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) 1,700 vehicles per hour- (vph) Clearance Interval 0 .05 of cycle length Right- turn -on -red allowed' NA Yes ATMS Credit'` NA 05 Critical Movement / ICU calculation 3 decimals for each critical 2 decimals for each critical movement, summed and movement rounded to 2 for the final ICU ' Right - turn -on -red is allowed from exclusive right -turn lanes. For the City of Irvine, "unofficial" right -turn lanes (known as a de facto right -turn lane) are assumed in the ICU calculation if 19 feet of travel lane exists from lane stripe to edge of roadway, and curbside parking is prohibited during peak periods. ` ATMS is an advanced traffic signal management system employed by the City of Irvine to allow them to control signal operations in real -time response to traffic conditions at the intersection. Intersections with the ATMS equipment installed are given a 5% capacity credit. The ATMS credit is not applied to intersections located within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). One study intersection (University Drive at Campus Drive) has the ATMS credit applied. Intersection analysis for unsignahzed intersections has been conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, which returns a delay value, expressed in terms of the average seconds of delay per vehicle. Operating conditions for both ICU and HCM methodologies are expressed in terms of "Level of Service" which is also referred to by its acronym, LOS. The ICU calculation returns a volume -to- capacity (VIC) ratio that translates into a corresponding Level of' Service, ranging from LOS "A" representing uncongested, free - flowing conditions, to LOS 'T ", representing congested, over - capacity conditions. The HCM methodology returns a delay value, expressed in terms of the average seconds of delay per vehicle, which also corresponds to a Level of Service measure. A summary description of each Level of Service and the corresponding V/C ratio or delay is provided on the following chart. Uptown Newport Project - 8 - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Signalized: Unsignalized: Level of ICU HCM a Description Service VIC Ratio Delay (see) EXCELLENT —No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and A 0.00-0.60 <10 no approach phase is fully used. VERY GOOD — An occasional approach phase is fully utilized: B 0.61 - 0.70 > 10 and 5 15 drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. GOOD — Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more C 0.71 -0,80 > 15 and 25 than one red light; back -ups may develop behind turning vehicles- FAIR — Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush D 0.81 -0.90 > 25 and `'i 35 hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive back-ups, POOR— Represents the most vehicles that the intersection E 0.91 - 1.00 > 35 and 50 approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. FAILURE — Back -ups train nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the F > 1.00 > 50 intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. ' Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Uptown Newport Project - 9 - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 Performance Criteria The City of Newport Beach target Level of Service (LOS) for peak hour operation of signalized intersections is LOS "D" or better, except for designated intersections within the airport area shared with the City of Irvine, where LOS ° "E" is acceptable. In the City of Irvine, the target Level of Service is LOS "D ". except where the intersection is located in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) or the Irvine Spectrum area. For these intersections„ the target Level of Service is "U, The following study intersections are located in the Irvine Business Complex: No Intersection I, MacArthur Boulevard at Main Street 1 MacArthur Boulevard at 1 -405 Northbound Ramps 3, MacArthur Boulevard at I -405 Southbound Ramps 4. MacArthur Boulevard at Michelson Drive 5. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive & MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road 9, MacArthur Boulevard at Fairchild Road 12. Von Karman Avenue at Main Street 11 Von Karman Avenue at Michelson Drive 14. Von Karman Avenue at Dupont Drive 15. Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive IT Teller Avenue at Campus Drive 1.9. Jamboree Road at Main Street 20. Jamboree Road a I -405 Northbound Ramps 21. Jamboree Road at I -405 Southbound Ramps 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive 21 Jamboree Road at Dupont Drive 24. Jamboree Road at Campus Drive 26. Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road 31. Carlson Avenue at Michelson Drive 32. Carlson Avenue at Campus Drive Threshold of Significance Citv of Newport Beach To determine whether or not the addition of project - generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the following threshold of significance: • A significant impact would occur when the addition of project - generated trips causes the Level of Service at a study intersection to deteriorate from acceptable (LOS "D", except for intersections on a CMP facility, and designated intersections in the Airport Area, where LOS "E" is acceptable) to a deficient Level of Service. Uptown Newport Project - to- Kimiey -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 A significant impact would occur- when the addition of project- generated trips increases the ICU at a study intersection by one percent or more (v /c increases by 0.010 or more), worsening a projected baseline condition of LOS "E" or "F ". For unsignalized intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service, a signal warrant analysis will be conducted to determine if a signal is warranted. The signal warrant analysis will be conducted according to the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Warrant 3 — Peak Hour warrant parameters, using the peak hour intersection volumes, City of Irvine To determine whether or not the addition of project - generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Irvine has adopted the following threshold of significance: • A significant impact would occur when the intersection exceeds the acceptable Level of Service (LOS "D" except if located in the IBC, where LOS "E'," is acceptable) in the baseline condition and the impact of the development is greater than or equal to two percent,(v /c increase by 0.02 or more), or; • The project increases the ICU by one percent or more (vlc increases by 0.01 or more) at a study intersection causing it to become deficient. Should a significant impact occur, project mitigation would be required to bring the intersection back to baseline conditions, at a minimum. Study Scenarios Each of the study intersections has been analyzed for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions • Existing Plus Project Conditions • TPO Analysis: Year 20'18 with Committed Projects without Project • TPO Analysis: Year 2018 with Committed Projects with Phase I • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2018 with Cumulative Project's with Phase 1 • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Cumulative Analysis: Year 2021 with Cumulative Project's with Full Project LJptown Newport Project 1l - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November„ 2012 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Roadway Characteristics Regional access to the project site is provided by the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73), located less than one mile to the south of the project area, and by the San Diego Freeway (I -405) located less than 1.5 miles north of the project area. The proposed development would take access to the surrounding street system via connections to Jamboree Road for Phase 1 and connections to Jamboree Road and to Birch Street for Phase 2. Birch Street is a four -lane undivided roadway, designated as a Secondary Arterial on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. Birch Street extends in a north -south direction from south of SR- 73 to MacArthur Boulevard, and then turns and extends in an east -west direction from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road. Birch Street is divided by a painted median, and on- street parking is prohibited in the vicinity of the project. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Bristol Street North is part of the Bristol Street couplet that runs along either side of State Route 73 (SR -73). Bristol Street North is a four -lane one -way arterial that extends from Jamboree Road in a northwest direction north of and parallel to SR -73. It crosses over SR -73 and connects with Bristol Street at Santa Ana Avenue/Redhill Avenue. Bristol Street is classified as a Primary Arterial in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. Bristol Street South is the southbound portion of the Bristol Street couplet. Bristol Street South is a four -lane one -way arterial that extends from Santa Ana Avenue /Redhill Avenue to Jamboree Road in a southeast direction south of and parallel to SR -73. Campus Drive is a to ur -lane divided arterial that extends north -south between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard then turns and e xtends as a to ur -lane undivided arterial in an e ast -west orientation between MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive. Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of the street along Campus Drive. The posted speed limit on Campus Drive ranges from 45 mph to 50 mph within the study area. Campus Drive is designated on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element as a Major Arterial between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard, and as a Secondary Arterial between MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive. The Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73) is a s even- to eight -lane divided freeway providing regional access to and through the project area. The Corona del Mar Freeway starts at the San Diego Freeway (1 -405) and extends southeast just beyond University Drive, where it becomes the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. SR -73 has four travel lanes in the northbound direction, and transitions from four to three travel lanes in the southbound direction east of Bristol Street. Uptown Newport Project - 12- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 Du cmt Drive is a four -lane divided east -west arterial in the City of Irvine that extends from north of Michelson Drive, across Von Karman Avenue to just east of Jamboree Road. Dupont Drive is divided by a painted median and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph to the west, and 40 mph to the east of Vol) Karman Avenue. Fairchild Road is a four -lane collector in the City of Irvine that extends from Jamboree Road to McArthur Boulevard, and provides access to the Cen terpointe office development, located across Jamboree Road from the Koll Center development. Fairchild Road intersects with Jamboree Road and aligns with the existing signalized driveway that provides access to the existing uses on the Uptown Newport Project site. Fairchild Road is divided by a painted median. Jamboree Road is a six -lane to eight -lane divided arterial that extends through both Irvine and Newport Beach in a north -south direction. Within the Newport Beach city limits, Jamboree Road is mainly a six -lane divided arterial with three 'lanes in each direction, with the exception of four southbound travel lanes between Birch Street and Fairchild Road. Jamboree Road transitions into an eight -lane arterial north of the Newport Beach city limits. Jamboree Road is divided by a raised landscaped median and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Jamboree Road is classified as a Major arterial in both cities" Circulation Elements. Main Street is a si x -lane divided cast -west arterial in the City of Irvine, located approximately a quarter -mile north of the I -405 Freeway. Main Street is divided by a raised landscaped median and has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Main Street is designated as a Major arterial on the City of Irvine Circulation Element. MacArthur Boulevard is a six- to eight -lane divided arterial that extends through the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. MacArthur Boulevard is divided by a raised or painted median and has a posted speed limit of 55 mph, MacArthur Boulevard is classified as a Major arterial in both cities' Circulation Elements. Michelson Drive is a four -lane divided east -west arterial in the City of Irvine, located approximately one -third mile south of the 1 -405 Freeway. Michelson Drive is divided by a painted median and has a posted speed limit of 45 mph to the west, and 50 mph to the east of Jamboree Road. the San Diego Freeway (I405) is a twelve -lane freeway through the study area, providing regional access to the vicinity via interchanges at McArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. A carpool lane is provided in both the northbound and southbound directions. Utiiversit Drive is a your -lane to six -lane divided arterial. Uni versity Drive extends eastward from Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach across the SR -73 into the City of Irvine, and through the University of California Irvine (UCI). University Drive transitions from four to six lanes at the SR-73 southbound ramps. University Drive is divided by a raised landscaped median and has a posted speed limit of 45 mph within the City of Newport Beach limits. University Drive is classified as a Primary on Uptown Newport Project - 13- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element and a Major arterial on the City of Irvine Circulation Element. Von Karman Avenue is a four -lane divided north -south Primary Arterial that starts at MacArthur Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, and extends northward into the City of Irvine. Von Karman Avenue is divided by a painted median and has a posted speed limit of 40 to 45 mph. Von Karman Avenue is classified as a Primary on the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. On the City of Irvine Circulation Element, Von Karman Avenue is classified as a Secondary Highway between Campus Drive and Michelson Drive and as a Major Highway north of Michelson Drive. Existing Transit Service Figure S illustrates the bus routes currently operated by OCTA through the study area in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. 'T'he following OCTA routes serve the project site and vicinity. OCTA Route Sri operates between the City of Anaheim and the City of Irvine vi a Kraemer Boulevard /Glassell Street /Grand Avenue and Von Kansan Avenue. Route 59 starts at Kraemer and La Palma in Anaheim and proceeds through the cities of Orange, Santa Ana and Tustin, then through the City of Irvine to the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The Route 59 stop closest to the project site is at the co rner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Ro tire 59 operates in full route mode on weekdays from 4:30 AM to 11:30 PM with 20- to 35- minute headways. On Saturdays, Route 59 does not offer service to UCI; it only operates to Pullman Street and Dyer Road from 6:50 AM to 11:30 PM, with 65- minute headways. Route 59 does not currently operate on Sundays. OCT -1 Route 76 operates between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Newport Beach via Talbert AvenuelMacArthur Boulevard. Route 76 starts at Talbert and Beach in Huntington Beach, and travels through the cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana and Irvine to Newport Beach, where it turns around at the Newport Transportation Center. The Route 76 stop closest to the project site is at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Route 76 operates on weekdays only, from 4:55 AM to 11:10 PNI with 45- minute to 1 -hour headways. OCTA Route 178 operates between the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Irvine via Adams Avenue, Birch Street, and Campus Drive, Route 178 starts at Goldenwest Street and Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach and heads east through the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to UCI in the City of Irvine. The Route 178 stop closest the site is located at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 178 operates in full -route mode on weekdays from 5:50 AM to 10:50 PM with 45- minute to 1 -hour headways. On Saturdays, Route 178 does not offer service to UCI; it operates only to the Orange County Fairgrounds from 8:20 AM to 4:20 PM with 45- minute headways. Route 178 does not operate on Sundays. Uptown Newport Project -14- Kimtey -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 ts- OCTA Route 212 provides express route service between John Wayne Airport and San Juan Capistrano via the San Diego Freeway (I -405). Route 212 starts at John Wayne Airport and continues south on the 1 -405 Freeway to San Juan Capistrano, where it turns around at the Jumpero Serra Park - and -Ride. The Route 178 stop closest the site is located at the corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. Route 212 operates on weekdays only, and in the northbound direction only in the morning — from 5 :50 to 730 AM; and in the southbound direction only in the evening— from 4:00 to 6:30 PM� OCTA Route 213 operates between the Park - and -Ride in Brea and UCI via Brea Boulevard, Chapman Avenue, SR -55 Freeway, Alton Parkway, Jamboree Road, Main Street, Von Karman Avenue, Michelson Drive, and Harvard Avenue. Major destinations along the route include Brea Mall, Fullerton Transportation Center, the Village at Change, and UCI. Route 213 operates on weekdays only, and in the southbound direction only in the morning — from 5:22 to 7:58 AM; and in the northbound direction only in the evening— from 4:03 to 6:58 PM. OCIA Route 472 provides Metrolink 'feeder route service for the Tustin Metrolink Station on Jamboree Road. Route 472 starts at the Tustin Metrolink Station and travels through the City of Irvine where it turns around at the Food and Drug Administration building on Fairchild Road, across Jamboree Road from the project site. The Route 472 stop closest to the site is located at the corner of Fairchild Road and Jamboree Road, Route 472 operates on weekdays only, and in the southbound direction only in the morning — from 6:10 to 9:00 AM; and in the northbound direction only in the evening — from 3:30 to 5:20 PM. I. ptown Newport Project - 16- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing Traffic Volumes Field observations of all study intersections were conducted to document the number of through and turning lanes, traffic control, and other existing traffic conditions at each intersection. Existing I ane configurations and intersection traffic controls at the study intersections are shown on Figure 6. Morning and evening peak hour intersection movement counts in this study were collected at the study intersections between March, 2010 andN ovember, 2011_ Existing peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 7. Copies of peak hour traffic data collection sheets are provided in Appendix A. Existing Intersection Analysis Peak hour intersection analysis was conducted for the signalized study intersections using the applicable intersection analysis methodology and parameters for each city, as discussed previously in this report, U risignalized intersections were analyzed using the HCM to ethodology for unsignalized intersections. Table I summarizes existing AM and PM peak hour intersection operations. Review of Table I indicates that all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" for all intersections, except LOS "E" for intersections in the IBC area and CMP intersections) in both peak hours. Intersection Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Uptown Newport Project - 17- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 0 s m � w a S ��`��L,TiS�QQn o S�fJ U.aONN ®o dg ry yb lee! - 9° B i Y a ¢ 4bk °Y ry a b 4� T PouMwge e k � ee J \ 4v9 es J H z 0 v O g 2 b Q O LL Y Z O V e Z J 6 WZ EX Li W fo ier y` � lf1- LL= rYrr �� r�frrmf � _� ffr � $ da Jlll rl{!l 8l 1Ji- >£ � 1fi- 1fr �illll J8{ll ;- �� »tffr »fifr }�f1r iflr �!{` {a � qtr r�r �m� °s T 'E 1 ° Y m� �pll � � m_ ..v)l � • €� )Ill � A rS �{l �- ^ �; )!hl `- ' �„ $ JBII � ' s� e / SO c - u� Z`Yj d c e £� o S d 4g / � F � � 6 .- ya r � Sn�sa N W i O U F C3: � O S Y W CL n W Z UX LL W i£� 1!4 �z' �,r T� 1 ®-u pRti E°' p µq 1 gi t�n �l.a gggggr m UelZl -r `� TggT fm IY {IVK-y �P( ��°- Ili�y $0� 0'4 Imi� -y 0 Iv646'y yG CWMI"y �� -a YJ4�IDM E d14 �pb v1 t��lWNR S3 114�1Yb )� .fIS 1Nt[ Co .J14 �bTt fm4a -+ �aYU -^ a � Iw.ktc IwT )& 1 Y1�` Wru oa IWrv4y 1t cF yN'Xtt -+q I ES IWIktS �T� 6tl MX!(H -a T% .%�4��d 14�r1ro 114�wk .114 ~Iw YU �� 1 114~U� €T gt -, t f #�k -� i�� Iga't�nre Lu -'.1Ff �e rRl� -�• IN.�t -v I�� VYtI 'Y I+Po4ro,' Z'q laMi � I Wn MkN � -AQYa[ 1 4r1-w � Y p� w E0 rE6�lsXr-r � 2 I k 1 K0 66T � � LLk 0�1 � t 1 �m IkiWM[� % T 4 fyfi �� T4' -®r_ s i L mca, Ea r1RS 2i4"Irem x alt mn 1 � .r x;.o� E 1�� aez-" t F < s�am�l -, �0 ��l � I ^5 TABLE I, UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS .AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ belay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS I MacArthur Blvd/Main St a S 0..49 A (!65 B 2 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 NB Ramps a S 0.81 D 0.72 C 3 MacArthur BlvePI -405 SB Ramps a S 0.,59 A 0,65 B 4 MacArthur Blvd /Michelson Dr a S 0.68 B 0.65 B 5 MacArthur Blvd /Campus Dr a S 0.48 A 0.60 A 6 MacArthur Blvd/Birch St S 0.34 A 0.46 A 7 MacArthur Blvd[Von Kansan Ave S 0,54 A 0.44 A 8 IMacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Rd a-1h S 0,59 A 0.67 1 B 9 MacArthur B1v irch9td P.d a S 0.71 C 0.72 C 10 1 MacArthur Blvd NB Off-ramp/University Dr S 0.44 A 0.54 A I S jMacArdaur Blvd SB Off-ramp/University Dr S 0.38 A 032 A 12 Yon Kansan Ave/Main St a S 0,64 B 0.70 B 13 Von Kamran Ave/Michelson Dr a S 0.44 A 0.64 B 14 Von Karman Ave/Dupont Dr a S 0.34 A 0,41 A 15 Von Karman Ave/Campus Dr a S 0.47 A 0.59 A 16 Von Karmen Ave /Birch St S 1 0.29 A 0,35 A 17 Teller Ave /Campus Di a S 027 A 0,41 A 18 'letter Ave/Birch St U 12.1 B 11.5 B 19 Jamboree Rd/Main St a S 0.70 B 0,61 B 20 Jamboree Rd/1 -405 NB Ramps a' S 0.64 B 0.62 B 21 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 SB Ramps a S 0.88 D 0.81 D 22 Jamboree RJMiohelson Dr a S 0.61 B 0.68 B 23 Jamboree Rd/Dupont Dr a S 0.61 B 0.63 B 24 Jamboree Rd/Campas Dr - a S 1 0.67 B 1 0.63 B 25 Jamboree Rd/Birch St S 0.46 A 0.48 A 26 Jamboree Rd/PaircMd Rd a S 0.65 B 0.63 B 27 Jamboree Rd /Bristol St North S 0,29 A 0.46 A 28 IJamboree Rd/Bristol St South S 0.45 A 0.52 A 29 Jamboree R.dBayview Way S 0.39 A 039 A 30 Jamboree Rd/Umversity Dr S 056 A 0.52 A 31 Carlson Ave/Michelson Dr a S 0,48 A 0.60 A 32 Carlson Avc/Campus Dr a S 0.39 A 0-72 C 33 Harvard Ave/Micbelson Dr S 1 0.65 B 037 C 34 Campus Dr /Bristol St North S 0.411 A 0.71 C 35 Birch St /Bristol St North S 0.54 A (t56 A 36 Campus Dr /Bristol St South S 0.59 A 0.48 A 37 Birch St/Bristol St South S 0.39 A 0Al A 38 Bayview PI /Bristol St South S 0,40 .A QA9 A 39 Irvine Ave /Mesa Dr S 032 A 0.49 A 40 University Dr /Campus Dr S 0.70 B 1 0.73 C 41 Mesa Rde University Dr S 0.59 A 0.62 B 42 California AVe,'UfltVeFStry Dr S 0_58 A B B 43 Birch St/Driveway C) 8,8 A 13 B crswf nii o 1xaled sf nn the 1,,m B.nosn Cm,,kx Vision Pin.tea {LOS E Acceptabl} F : renge Comay Congestion Munagerneat Prog nin, (CMP) Intersection (I..US E Accepr,ble) gnnl¢ed, U- Uwigri.hzed B.1d valuvin(t.r, IAfirBCCif10n5 Orcnintg Ai do 1nlvC pt.bk LOS. tIi2EISP.lYl09 O [3hMi IS i,pICB. d in dV.p,.nds 9f d6a., ts,, NehidI tttiong fi , t1eas hon, r¢[ nnsi,ssnah,,d int ... o On,, noing NC M 2000 Methodcdogy and is expressed in vtrhmx- to- espncity (v /c) for sigtia7ized inleraecHons using ICU Methodology, Uptown Newport Project -20- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc, Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 PROJECT TRAFFIC Trip Generation Existing Conexant Development Trip Generation The project site is currently occupied by two buildings: 4311 Jamboree, with 115,375 square feet of office use and 11,300 square feet of light industrial use, and 4321 Jamboree, with 52,447 square feet of office space and 258,505 square feet of industrial use. Since these two buildings will be removed to make way for the proposed Uptown Newport Project, the trips currently generated at the site driveways by this existing development will be deducted from the trips to be generated by the proposed project (ISM For the Phase 1 Project, only the 4311 Jamboree office building will be removed. For Phase 2 (the Full Project), both buildings will be removed. Existing driveway counts were used to determine the trip credit to be applied for this traffic impact analysis. (See footnote 44 on Tables 2 and 3.) Proposed Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the pro posed project were developed using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8`t' Edition) publication. The proposed project components and 'trip generation estimates for the Uptown Newport Project are as follows: Phase 1: • Multi- Family Residential — 6 80 dwelling units. The project may include a variety of multi- family residential product types, e.g.; condominium, apartment„ townhotnes, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment" are applied to all 1,244 residential unit's. • Commercial (Retail & Restaurant) — 1 1,500 sq uare feet, consisting of 5,500 square feet of specialty retail use and 6,000 square feet of quality restaurant. • A 10% reduction in the trips for the commercial development was applied to account for pass - by trips, as directed by City of Newport Beach staff. • Trip generation estimates for Phase 1, including trip credits for the existing development to be removed and adding the new trips for the proposed Phase 1 project, are shown on Table 2. Phase 2: • Multi - Family Residential Units — 1,244 units_ T he project may include a variety of multi- family residential product types, e.g.: condominium, apartment, townhomes, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment" are applied to all 1,244 residential units. Uptown Newport Project -21- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 • Commercial (Retail & Restaurant) – 11,500 square feet, consisting of 5,500 square feet of specialty retail use and 6,000 square feet of quality restaurant. • A 10% reduction in the trips for the commercial development was applied to account for pass - by trips, as directed by City of Newport Beach staff. • Trip generation estimates for the entire Uptown Newport project, including trip credits for removing the entire existing development on the site and adding the new trips for the entire Uptown Newport project are shown on Table 3. Review of the trip generation estimates for the existing office and industrial development on the site, compared to the proposed project reveals that the proposed development will result in a shift of traffic patterns to and from the site. The traffic patterns for the existing office and industrial development are typical of employment uses, with a heavier traffic flow toward the employment uses (inbound) in the morning peak hour, and heavier traffic, flow away from the site (outbound) in the evening peak hour. The proposed Uptown Newport Project would consist of primarily residential uses, which would have the reverse traffic patterns – heavier traffic flow outbound from the residential uses in the morning peak hour, and heavier traffic flow inbound toward the site in the evening peak hour. As a result, while the proposed project will result in an overall increase in daily trips, there will be a reduction of trips on some intersection movements and an increase on others in each of the morning and evening peak hours. This is accounted for in the project trip distribution and assignment, as discussed to the next section. It should be noted that the existing buildings on the site are not fully occupied. In particular, the "half Doane" building at 4311 Jamboree Road is estimated to be operating at less than 50% capacity. Therefore, the trip credits for the existing uses to be removed are based on actual site traffic measured at the site driveways. A comparison of actual site traffic and trip generation estimates based on standard ITE trip rates is provided on the following chart. As review of this chart shows, the use of actual site- generated traffic counts, rather than ITE trip rates, is the most conservative approach. Comparison of Project Trip Generation: Actual Site Driveway Counts vs. ITE Standard Tri Generation Rates – Phase Phase Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out -°-- _' — Total In Out Total Driveway Counts 270 33 4 38 6 31 37 Ph. 1 ITE Trip Generation Rates 1,349 ] 66 22 l88 30 153 183 Driveway Counts 747 90 12 102 15 88 102 Ph. 2 ITE Trip Generation Rates 3,734 448 61 509 74 438 512 Uptown Newport Project -22- Rimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 'traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation Rates i AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Daily In Out I Total In Out Total Land Use Code Unit Apartment Z 220 DU 6.65 0.102 0.408 0.510 0.403 0.217 0.620 Specialty Retail Center 3 814 KSF 44.32 0.610 0.390 1.000 1.192 1.518 2.710 Quality Restaurant 931 KSF 89.95 0.664 0.146 0.810 5.018 2.472 7.490 Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out I Total Land Use Quantity Unit Trips for Existing Conexant Development to be Demolished for Phase 1 4311 Jamboree Buildings 270 1 33 1 4 1 38 6 31 37 Proposed Uptown Newport Phase 1 Development Apartment 680 DU 4,522 69 1 277 346 1 274 148 422 Specialty Retail Center a 5.50 KSF 244 3 2 5 7 8 15 Quality Restaurant 6.00 KSF 540 4 1 5 30 15 45� Sub-total - Phase 1 5,306 76 280 356 311 171 482 Retail Adjustment Factor 10% -24 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 Total Phase 1 Trips 5,282 76 280 355 310 170 480 Net New Phase 1 Trips 5,012 43 276 317 304 139 443 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers publication: Trip Generation, 8th Edition 2 The project may consist of a combination of multi - family residential product types, including condominium, apartment, townhome, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment" are used here. 3 ITE Trip Generation does not provide AM peak hour rates for a Specialty Retail Center. Therefore, the AM peak hour rates for Land Use Category 820 - Shopping Center were used to estimate AM peak hour trips. ° Indicate directional distribution for AM Peak Hour from AM Peak Hour of generator. s Source: Project site driveway counts 6 ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates pass -by for a shopping center is 34% in the PM peak hour. A 10% reduction is assumed for each peak hour, as directed by the City of Newport Beach staff. KSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = Dwelling Unit Uptown Newport Project -23- Kimley -Hom and Associates. Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF PHASE 2 (FULL PROJECT) TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation Rates' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Trips Land Use Code er Daily In Out I Total In Out I Total Apartment' 220 DU 6.65 0.102 0.408 0.510 0.403 0.217 0.62 Specialty Retail Center 3 814 KSF 44.32 0.610 0.390 1.000 1.192 1.518 2.71 Quality Restaurant 931 KSF 89.95 0.664 0.146 0.810 5.018 2.472 7.49 Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I Daily In Out I Total In I Out Total Land Use Quantity Unit Trips for Total Conexant Development to be Demolished for Entire Uptown Newport 4311 & 4321 Jamboree Buildings S 74790 1 12 1 102 15 88 102 Proposed Uptown Newport Total Development Apartment 1,244 1 DU 8,273 127 508 635 501 270 771 Specialty Retail Center 3 5.50 KSF 244 3 2 5 7 8 15 Quality Restaurant& 6.00 KSF 540 4 1 5 30 15 45 Sub -total 9,057 134 511 645 538 293 831 Retail Adjustment Factor6 10% -24 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 Total Project Trips 9,033 134 511 644 537 292 829 Net New Total Project Trips 18,286 1 44 1 499 1 542 1 522 204 727 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers publication: Trip Generation. 8th Edition ' The project may consist of a combination of multi - family residential product types, including condominium, apartment, townhome, etc. For a most conservative trip generation analysis, the ITE trip generation rates for "Apartment" are used here. 3 ITE Trip Generation does not provide AM peak hour rates for a Specialty Retail Center. Therefore, the AM peak hour rates for Land Use Category 820 - Shopping Center were used to estimate AM peak hour trips. Indicate directional distribution for AM Peak Hour from AM Peak Hour of generator. s Source: Project site driveway counts s ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates pass -by for a shopping center is 34% in the PM peak hour. A 10% reduction is assumed for each peak hour, as directed by the City of Newport Beach staff. KSF = Thousand Square Feet DU = Dwelling Unit Uptown Newport project -24- Kimley -Ham and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 Trip Distribution and Assignment Project trip distribution assumptions for the project site were developed individually for the existing industrial and office uses on the site, and for the proposed Uptown Newport Project. Trip distribution assumptions for the existing employment uses were based on observed traffic patterns to and from the project site, and on I ikely origins and destinations of project patrons and employees. Since the office development on the site will be removed, the existing office development trips were distributed as negative trips. Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed residential development were based on likely local and regional destinations in the project area, and the transportation network available for those trips. Distribution assumptions were submitted to City staff for review and concurrence. Trip distribution assumptions for the existing office and industrial development are shown on Figure 8. Trip distribution assumptions for the proposed Uptown Newport Project on Figure 9. Based on these two trip distribution patterns, the net new trips to be added (or subtracted, if appropriate, due to the shift in traffic patterns from employment to residential) to the street system by the proposed project were combined and calculated. The resulting project trips are shown on Figure 10 for Phase 1 of the project, and on Figure 11 for the total proposed project. As described earlier, negative project volumes are the result of the shift in traffic patterns from employment-oriented uses, with heavier inbound flows in the morning and outbound in the evening; to residential uses, with reverse traffic flows. Uptown Newport Project -25- Kimley -horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 N LU W OF D CL. 0 Z - w } LL H- u -26- N m _O O O NC -27- O N o Y G ai a LO YLm V �b C li 9 d C1 u o � Z a NUW a c N � £ 4'� Y m yTO�6/ O� C °OPU �° PJ �`yP Ca"woo pva C � O �WP �giechitd Rd z c k 0 Umfi r MacWd"a Blvd 3 N St m m o a°a a r , 9 0 a a PS`�PlgO S � M� e ea G° P4 Z F u O W g N ta° bPi4 a�ba Jc �O CL ii E o D m ° N E w ® Y I�.4/. Zh W Ln ,,Y Z Ityu�rb /F. 0 ay�/. a O 4L � Z U M G -27- r� ��Wxa 8mm�� b mgr >< x i >< r;- �• 4 ruy.r. c non— NL'- -r e EpN 6Bb-r [,r u T.-— dp q M1tM-r ¢m fkM -.. frg Isla --r� EZ 6rt-r� siy f cy Ilp -r -tr tz •. > � mE ¢ f4 �' «4M � aE ¢� °LL � « IiMi � Wln-n �m � IWr.•> � r � #5 £55 $a « -ISSMt s 5� 8� ^-pU � 01 %-r ✓+yr - t gg B,k_, lub-r s # X 4 9 A V) LLI 2 D J 0 LLu_ LL D O i Q 0. a a W ulF- J u w NON w 00. ui lu wV) D Q V_ M CL W rm E zZn�E m Ix d bs� �cx d°d ♦° S F �e 5 S J � �a � —to* c w ko Q U D O Y Q W a W J W P U W � Y o $ IL @ t. U 8 W j yae CL e 1 J § J L LL w N a W in uj Q 4 v T fL .-klk u E -E�i$ INr-. Ea 4 e� -Ie�M py b-I%KKE x i 4. uu NIX-+ 1 `u Imo-. Er kiV-r E' bCe-s BE j4 E» mac Ex- L•-�� qo 1� `-iem Po y'd mg (LtJ cg E4 Eu Utl _ cn m I(9b -r KKk-s I¢kw n� x WKKj, -a 5a_T r - t (t -0'v 1 m •-wu aY ay 1 8£ • -I�sKKa ° i 4 ao .-me r E. r mp £q . � Ime-r T En - Fm 13-r ae bpy-r �E` bkr.s t E8 Mlk-r $� �2 1¢M-r mN t uE KK »� t Yn bJp-r r Ei Iglr -r E> �tq-° IwSt -a T EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS This section presents results of the analysis of the impacts associated with adding project - related trips to existing traffic volumes. The Existing Plus Project scenario is a hypothetical scenario which assumes that the Project would be fully implemented at the present time. This analysis is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and assumes full development of the Project and full absorption of Project traffic on the existing circulation system. Existing plus Project peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 12. The intersection analysis was conducted, and the results are summarized on Table 4. With the addition of project traffic to Existing Conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service. The addition of project traffic would not cause a significant impact at any study intersection. Uptown Newport Project _30- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 5 c Es �fUQg g R m v \ W 0 U fit LL LL 3 O ;t s Y g W a CB W s a J g a d W Z a 0: U`X L W '4 E" r E Ubllot -. r£¢r �� rgr k � ✓�4r� E�6 ��''= i� �il��ei �a '•4 Yn� _'x (uM� � _ mJY' �m bWO� x qxi� �� --• �� Y ��iM�a-v 'm` t�� d � tz �� 'i T r _T F c w 1CM.1 e r d'=jj� .� ,g a m� �.,..�u igi .i ;fir --wow-- .r e r r n g �,.�— r r r gr a J4"roR, n x 11 Jfi, lts !un xxxx aii - g =� gE "� „� Ives --. err �ff� ��„�-' � Tr g� ,� rr q ,j N < 0 Z I. Rl 0 U) � t Z E :�: 2 .0 - -IZ � Z z z z z x 1 z z ZIZ z z z zlz z z z z z Z Z Z z z z z z z z Z z z Z z z z .4 z z z z 71 z z z z 4 z z z z z z z z z z z < < m¢ d Imid . . . . O Q C] ¢ m d d u I 4 6 m <1 +1 m m¢ r T z tj Z z < m TITIT 5 z 7 i 0. .i E! Z� G G z z a E > > E IT 8 a < < < E E El E 'a 04 a'aaaaaaa 4, 0 0 0 0 0 a le 14 14 �E E r E E E 8 E > > > > ,j N < 0 Z I. Rl 0 U) � t Z E :�: 2 .0 ow Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z Z, Z' z z CC P. < < u m m m - - - - - - - - - - - LL �s �Q 6 m m u ml ow FUTURE CONDITIONS Near -term future traffic forecasts have been developed for two analysis conditions — Opening Year with Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects traffic, representing analysis of the conditions required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO); and Opening Year with Committed plus Cumulative Projects, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A discussion of each is provided in the following sections. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis The City of Newport Beach TPO first, requires determination of whether project trips will increase traffic volumes on any leg of a Primary Intersection by one percent or more during either the morning or evening peak hour one year after project completion, or that portion of the project expected to be constructed within five years (sixty months) of project approval, which would be Year 2018. The TPO then requires a Level of Service analysis of the project impact at any Primary Intersection that exceeds the I% threshold. The entire Uptown Newport Project is not anticipated to be completed within five years of approval. Therefore, the TPO analysis will address that portion of the project expected to be completed within the five -year timeframe — referred to as Phase 1. The remaining part of the project to be completed after the five -year timeframe will be required to prepare a separate TPO analysis at a later date to satisfy the requirements of the TPO ordinance. For TPO purposes, traffic forecasts are developed by applying an ambient growth rate of one percent per year on primary roadways (Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Irvine Avenue) in the project vicinity, plus traffic from Committed Projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Committed projects consist of projects in the City of Newport Beach that have been approved, but are not yet fully constructed and occupied. Committed Projects information was provided by the City of Newport Beach Staff. A copy of the Committed Projects data sheets provided by the City of Newport Beach is included in Appendix C. A summary of Committed Projects for Newport Beach is provided on Table S. Traffic volumes generated by the Committed Projects in the study area were added to existing peak hour volumes plus ambient growth to develop Year 2018 TPO forecast traffic volumes as shown on Figure 13. T'PO 10/. Analysis In accordance with City of Newport Beach traffic study requirements, the project traffic contribution at the study intersections was evaluated for the TPO Analysis to determine the extent of the traffic impact analysis required of the project. The study intersections identified through the 1% Analysis will be evaluated for the TPO Analysis, as required by the City of Newport Beach traffic study requirements. uptown Newport Project -34- kimley -Horn and Associates. Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 C O W c F o E CcoaF g & w Z�t�i�g � fx vjE tI E ma � �. walua� i i- I Iwm r rc� m mnuur L EV I LI »w: g g§,�- � �s 5 5�tmms= u� I Ir4 ->5G� k �q 1 kR )w-�. T iq I laofm �1 I I E I¢aib. -. � �gggETppl m� � �� L Lim 9 Q QS � �¢ " "-b ka � q q 4 � L�Iwum. F 4� ' ` F� � ` -A>AiB ` `N� u u✓:.L� u u � � � �_.- T'� - -IaW Ia01w -. E 'smbt -s a a l llmvz -> > >s T I 11 L u Mnl I E 1 11 L I I k o oy � 1 14 m �- Im•AVt � �c b ,1l S'—m k bwMU a E g 1 114 m a6v[ � � N 1 l 4'—�um Nwlw 461 &a 9 9 m m(1b1 I IxKS 6 68.Itt[J 2 2 p UJW p}si-" t I IeAne^> i i " "u f fabyy' � �� m m6a, -1 § I U m @lip. „p I m° $ $g � �I.uer3 a a t th2pmmxr m ti..�p ` `'m a ag E E ks ' T � Q o 1 'E r t I - - f t r E E"0 I r W "n ) W�b4k V�' m ) T mb— ff� f 1WilYG -+ T � - fati t :� m -+ t m„1,._, i if _• " mu _ "-Imlrw t toJVa Y Y- w 11�`"ma $ w» " G $� ! !1S`I J Gil. wpm. a a3 ; u i T I : A u�,k i frg$� : A _ . .M1i Y Y4 L g g 1 1 L E Es 1 11 S I I »b� 1 1 1 114` — —mew a a�' 1 Eli _ MENU . .i-Im QiIYZ— I Iske i im ( (BU 8 8, k k9�' m mi�o -` I mnlma —, a I/trui 1 T I „ m a f fmwuo—, I Imws-. 1 1 T i : :g I IPotlu6_. 1 1 T I � �> w wum:. —. T T I m +-,It + +-Pug- + w J 0 U LL LL O .T. Y w a U w O w d O 1— cn J Q Z Q O CL I-- M � w N �_w TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF COMMITTED PROJECTS City Project Number Project Name Percent Complete Newport Beach 4' 148 Fashion Island Expansion 40 °io 154 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 65% 555 CIOSA — Irvine Project 91% 910 — Newport Dunes 0% 945 Hong Hospital Phase III 0% 949 St. Mark Presbyterian Church 77% 954 OLQA Church Expansion 955 Newport Boulevard 0% 957 .2.300 Newport Executive Court 0° 4 958 Hon Health Center 75% 959 North Newport Center 0% 960 Santa Barbara Condo 0% 961 Newport Beach City Hall 0% 962 328 Old Newport Medical m 0% 963 Coastline Community College 0% 964 Bayview Medical Office 0% 965 Mariner's Pointe 0% 966 4221 Dolphin Striker 0% Source_ City of Newport Beach — Traffic Phasing Ordinance Data Includes approved projects less than 100% complete. Uptown Newport Project -36- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 For the TPO Analysis, the project - related morning and evening peak hour traffic volumes were compared to the Year 2018 without Project peak hour volumes on each leg of each study intersection to determine whether or not the project would result in a 1% increase. The result's of the analysis are summarized on 'Fable 6. 1% Analysis Worksheets for the TPO Analysis are provided 'it) Appendix D. Review of Table 6 shows that the project traffic will exceed 1 % on at least one approach in one or both peak hours at each of the Newport Beach study intersections. The project will proceed with a TPO traffic impact analysis at all of the study intersections. It should be noted that the 1% Analysis was not conducted for the study intersections in the City of Irvine, since the TPO requirement only applies to the City of Newport Beach intersections. However, all of the study intersections in the City of Irvine have been analyzed for all study scenarios in this report. Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project Intersection analysis was conducted for Year 2018 TPO Analysis ( Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects) without Project peak hour traffic conditions. ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project peak hour volumes were presented previously on Figure 13. `I"he results of the intersection analysis are summarized on Table 7. The following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project Conditions: • 21. Jamboree Road at 1 -405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F) + 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) Allotherstudyintersectionswouldoperateatanacceptablelevelofservicelnbothpeakhours. TPO Analysis with Project The project traffic- related impact's for Phase I of the project will be evaluated for the Year 2018 TPO Analysis (Existing plus Growth plus Committed Projects). Uptown Newport Project -37- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2612 TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF 1% ANALYSIS TPO ANALYSIS No. Intersection Condition Northbound A roach Southbound A roach Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach M AM PM AM PM 5 MacArthur Boulevard @ Campus Drive 1% of projected pk hr volume 10 14 16 11 7 3 10 Project peak hour volume 60 12 74 0 0 10 5 Project traffic less than 1 %? N Y N Y Y N Y 6 MacArthur Boulevard @ Birch Street 1% of projected pk hr volume 9 10 12 4 6 2 6 Project peak hour volume 15 PN 10 63 0 0 45 20 Project traffic leas than I%? N N N Y Y N N 7 MacArthur Boulevard @ Von Korman Avenue 1% of projected pk hr volume 16 6 10 1 5 2 8 Project peak hour volume 15 4 16 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than l %? Y N Y N Y Y Y Y 8 MacArthur Boulevard @ Jamboree Road I% of projected pk hr volume 21 12 6 16 16 13 13 18 Project peak hour volume 6 63 4 16 25 184 251 115 Project traffic Tess than 1 %? Y N Y N N N N N 15 Von Karman Avenue @ Campus Drive 1% of projected pk In volume 6 6 5 10 6 6 4 5 Project peak hour volume 10 3 3 26 2 11 25 13 Project traffic less than 1 %? N Y Y N Y N N N 24 Jamboree Road @Campus Drive I% of projected pk hrvolume 16 16 27 is 3 7 9 8 Project peak hour volume 153 56 2 134 5 27 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 %7 N N Y N N N Y Y 25 Jamboree Road @ Birch Street 1% of projected pk In volume 14 20 21 16 2 5 0 0 Project peak hour volume 104 35 1 160 49 16 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 %? N N Y N N N Y Y 27 Jamboree Road @ Bristol Street North I% of rojected pk hr volume 20 30 10 15 0 1 0 1 Project peak hour volume 25 184 176 81 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 %? N N N N Y Y Y Y 28 Jamboree Road @ Bristol Street South 1% of projected pk M volume 13 22 8 10 20 22 0 1 Project peak hour volume 4 52 50 20 21 132 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%9 Y N N N N N Y Y 29 Jamboree Road @ Bayview Way 1% of projected pkhr volume 16 19 19 20 2 1 1 2 Project peak hour volume 4 52 50 20 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 %? Y N N N Y Y Y Y 30 Jamboree Road @ University Drive 1% of projected pk hr volume 17 20 18 22 6 5 6 6 Project peak hour volume 4 52 50 20 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than I%' Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 34 Campus Drive @ Bristol Street North 1% of projected pk hr volume 19 11 4 16 0 0 13 23 Project peak hour volume 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 125 1 55 Project traffic less than 1 %? Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 35 Birch Street @ Bristol Street North 1% of projected pk M volume 10 5 3 II 0 0 17 20 Project peak hour volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 61 Project traffic less than t %? Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 36 Campus Drive @ Bristol Street South 1% of projected pk In volume 10 9 4 10 30 19 0 0 Project peak hour volume 2 26 25 10 0 0 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 %1 Y N N N Y Y Y Y 37 Birch Street@ Bristol Street South I% of projected pk In volume 6 6 6 9 18 14 0 0 Project peak hour volume 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 %? Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 38 Bayview Place @ Bristol Street South 1% of projected pk hr volume 1 3 0 0 27 27 0 0 Protect peak hour volume 0 0 0 0 21 132 0 0 Project traffic less than 1 %? Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 39 Irvine Avenue @Mesa Drive 1% of projected pk hrvolume 14 8 5 14 3 2 2 7 Project Peak hour volume 26 25 10 0 U 0 0 Project traffic less than 1%9 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Uptown Newport Project -38 - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2018 WITHOUT PROJECT - TPO ANALYSIS Intersection I U/S I AM Peak Maur I PM Peak Hour ICU / Delav I LOS I ICU / Delav I LOS 1 Mac Arthur Blvd/Main St a S 0.59 A 0.77 C 2 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 NB Ramps a S 0.76 C 037 C 3 MacArtiturBlvd/1 -405 SB Ramps a S 0,67 B 6.78 C 4 MacArthur BlvdtMichelson Dr a S 0.64 B 091 E 5 MacArthur Blvd/Campus Dr a S 0.62 B 0.89 D 6 MacArthur Blvd/Birch St S 0.39 A 0.49 A 7 MacArthur Blvd/Von Korman Ave S 0.59 A 0.47 A 8 lMacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Rd. aT S 0.67 B 098 C 9 IMacAithur Blvd/Fairchild Rd a S 0.87 D 0.53 A 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off�r'amp/lmivcrsity Dr S 0.50 A 0.61 B 11 MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramp /University Dr S 0.38 A 032 A 12 Von Kannan Ave/Nlain St a S 0.81 Il 0.87 D 13 Von Kerman Ave/Michelson Or a S 0.70 B 0.90 D 14 Von Kannw Ave/Dupont Dr a S 0.50 A 0.61 B 15 Von Karntmt Ave/Campus Dr a S 0.67 B 0.88 D 16 Von Kannan AveBirch St S 0,29 A 035 A 17 Teller Ave/Campus Dr a S I 0.50 A 0.52 A 18 Teller Ave/Bueh St U 12.1 B 11.5 B 19 Jamboree Rd/Main St a S 0.91 E 1.00 E 20 Jamboree Rd/1 405 NB Ramps a. S 0.71 C 0.92 E 21 Jamboree Rd/1-405 SB Ramps a' T, S 0.88 D 0.95 E 22 Jamboree Rd/Michelson Dr a S 0$2 D 117 F 23 Jamboree Rd /Dupont Dr a S 035 C 0.74 C 24 Jamboree Rd/Campus D, a S 0.78 C 0.81 D 25 Jamboree Rd/Birch St S 0.60 A 0.66 B 26 .Jamboree Rd/Fairchild Rd a S 0.69 B 0.73 C 27 Jamboree RdBristol St North S 0.35 A 0 -56 A 28 Jamboree, Rdimistol St South S 0,54 A 059 A 29 Jamboree RdrBayview Way S 037 A 0.43 A 30 Jamboree RdlUniversity Dr S 0.61 B 0.59 A 3t Carlson Ave/Michelson Di a S 0.62 B 0.86 D 32 Carlson Ave/Campus Dr a S 0.64 B 0.81 D 33 Harvard Ave/Michelson Dr S 0.74 C 0.85 D 34 Campus DdBristol St Non I S 0.50 A 0.73 C 35 Birch St /Bristol St North S 0.56 A 0.58 A 36 Campus Dr /Bristol St South S 0.61 B 0.49 A 37 Birch St /Bristol St South S 0.43 A OA3 A _7 Bayview Pl/Bristol St South S 0.44 A 0.50 A 39 Irvine Ave/Mesa Dr S 036 A 0.54 A 40 University Dr/Campus Dr S 0.84 D 0,83 D 41 Mesa Ris'University, Dr S 0.62 B 0.86 D 42 Aveniver si t, Dr Ca #imams `t; S 0 ,59 A 268 13 43 Birch SUDnvcway U 8.a A 11.3 B idotes: a- Intruerction is located within the nvuw Business Complex Vision Pinn Area (LOS E Aweprable) 6= (cmgeCounty Congestion Management Progrrun (CMP) intersection (LOS E Ace,iahlt) S =Sq,uhzad, U- Unsipaaluod Bold values asheate intersections operating of an unacceptable LOS. Intersection openaa,a is L'Opo used in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for unsqueduted intersections using HCM 2000 Methodolo, and is IPOpesswil at voharc- to- ,apasay (v /) for signalized ouvrsecuooa u,ats ICU Methodology, Uptown Newport Project -39- Kimley -Horn and AssociateS', Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 Year 2018 TPO Analvsis with Phase 1. In this scenario, project - related peak hour traffic volumes for Phase I of the project are added to the Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project traffic volumes. Phase I development would consist of removal of the 4' )11 Jamboree building, and development of 680 of the residential units, and all of the 1 1,500 square feet of commercial. Year 2018 TPO Analysis with Phase I peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 14. The results of the intersection analysis are summarized on Table 8. With the addition of Phase 1 project traffic, three study intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service: • 21. Jamboree Road at I -405 SB Ramps (AM: LOS F) + 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • 33. Harvard Avenue at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS E) The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at any of these intersections, therefore, the addition of Phase 1 trips would not result in a significant impact. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project - related impact of Phase I at the intersection of Harvard Avenue and Michelson Drive would be slightly negative, meaning that the reduction in existing office trips would more than offset the addition of the proposed residential trips. As a result, the intersection operations would improve slightly as a result of the proposed project, but would continue to operate at LOS F. The project would not result in a. significant impact with the addition of Phase I project trips at any of the study intersections. Uptown Newport Project -40- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 C p� .0 C � gg raQ O 3 O c m C O 11c \ J \ syq l cW G_ J 0 U W LL 0 i W w M g Q � _ $ CL J i Z Q O ui N _q i y_ W iz 45 eH�t�xu a � %� ImN � p�° `-onus rc_ ,LL• t�n:ce s 3_ �f� m •4 55 �mm�e a",wa Nm� : g vas 8m . —w:ow: mm x¢aw €xE fl rIMA Ec .11 ¢M o`er Fu 114 rb'n iE 14. INiW gz 4i box. -v � r r xp WN�Nt -� t r mw I�lut -r � r n$c' IRLM:eti vl t T 11^. c:2 gco WNet^. rEEt 114 ~IZtMC E. 1�4 Irv$ op 1 �•- 1e:Ywa: E r 11� Iv�wn � ltrdmx' all 114 wm+ €� 114 mmm ;" 114e -�wo �__ �1�C r-uw:. .° 11t ENO: dI4. -mgr Ixc�I _ Imk: _F U¢MV -� g¢g¢ 4.Ntz EGGgggg ti�.-y 5g5g ktlruy Ili € R m �StT �� Jlt��m` am IIW:'� sc rr in. IFKa SrT E MIDt.n rr `z fN,»:a5rr �" 1r Km Im5 0 :MUx: -� $ IsWx� -� a INWa -r @ fq YiMn-.. im j� j�4 E6$ FwF a 5fi ° aYY gy e � {p l�^' � E$6 $ffi Fi 114 (met 114 rbeM¢ %14 lNlm E 8 xnxm— gg ^-ImeM mci�4l6.Mik $�5 ,, WN')rr �s` �^ INIKNl �.�R f� h{Rbxy g 56 I6gNt1ti ��S �F I:S.bS'v ?�F IWk1'y �� n; R�L ,j N 0 0 E ID > < 0 Z m G 0 I, N qT I 0 Z a) O E F- 0. z 4 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 7- z z z Z z z z z z z z z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z z z z% z z z z z z z z z z z C! C 0 ec C d¢ q w w w w U Oq U¢¢¢ 0. < MI+ < < - - - - - - - - - - - <f' - and < < n 0 + IM m¢ m¢¢ =1 w u C1 a u D < m < d < M m 1 67, e, z C4 E < �24 '.,4 X > > > > > 4 4 4 u JZJ� E2 n .E ,j N 0 0 E ID > < 0 Z m G 0 I, N qT I 0 Z a) O E F- ro O O aF x z z z z z z z z z z z z z < < Fr L < < < < Ur w ro O O aF Cumulative Conditions Analysis CE.QA requires that a Cumulative Conditions analysis be conducted. The Cumulative Conditions analysis includes traffic from Cumulative Projects in the vicinity of the project. Cumulative Projects consist of the Committed Projects (approved project's in the City of Newport Beach), as well as other projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process, but have not yet been approved. These projects are considered to be "reasonably 'foreseeable" projects, and must therefore be analyzed for CEQA purposes. The Cumulative Projects list includes the Committed Projects, plus pending projects in the City of Newport Beach, as well approved and pending projects in the City of Irvine. A summary of Cumulative Projects is provided on Table 9. "Trip generation associated with the Cumulative Projects is provided on Table 10. The location of the Cumulative Projects in relation to the project site is shown on Figure 1.5. Peak hour traffic volumes for Cumulative Projects are summarized . for each study intersection on Figure 16. Cumulative Projects information and data provided by the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine are provided in Appendix C. The Cumulative Conditions analysis was conducted for two timefratnes based on project phasing: • Year 2018 with Cumulative. Projects without Project • Year 2018 with Cumulative Projects with Phase 1 • Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects without Project • Year 2021 with Cumulative Projects with the Full Project Future Year Cumulative Conditions peak hour traffic volumes for the City of Newport Beach intersections were developed by adding an ambient growth rate of one percent per year to existing volumes on primary roadways and then adding peak hour traffic volumes from the Cumulative Projects. For the City of Irvine intersections, City of Irvine transportation planning staff provided peak hour traffic forecasts from the Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (IT 1M) which is maintained and operated by the City. The ITAM forecasts include the effects of ambient traffic growth and traffic from Cumulative Projects. TTAM forecasts represent year 2015 traffic volumes, therefore, Irvine staff recommended applying a growth factor of 1.5% per year to develop year 2018 and 2021 forecasts. Uptown Newport Project -44- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Project Project Name Location Existing Project Description Proposed Project Description No. Cite of.. met c" Beach I Mariner's Medical Arts 1901 Westeliff Drivc N/A 12.245 GSF Medical Office Addition 2 Random Reach 4520 W, Coast Highway N/A 1375 DU Mixed Residential 75,000 GSF Comiramnsl Retail 75 Room Hotel, 23 Aare Para. 3 Swiset Ridge Park 4850 W, Cxavt Highway N, A 13.67 Acme Park 2 Melds SoccerCmrPdm 4 Marina Park 1700 Balboa Boulevard 57 DU Mobile Home Park Balboa Center Complex: 26,990 GSF 1.2 Acre Park Visiting Vessel Marina. 23 slips 2,900 GSF Recreational Marina Services Bldg 1,328 GSF Community Center Girl Scout House. 5,500 GSF 5 Noll 4311 Jamboree Road 167,000 Office 260 Residential Dwelling Units 269_000 General Light Indu.nrial 3,400 GSF Cormnercial 6 Newport Coast Newport Coast Drive 2,807 Acre State Park 3,180 DU Single Family Residentially 1,298 DU Condomm nMTownhouse `l1 582 DU Multi Family N 7 Newpms Beach Country 1600 Bast Coast Highway N/A 5 Residential DU, 27 Hotel Units, Club hr 3523 GSF Terram Cleb with Spa 51,213 GSFGo)fCEuh with ace- Facility 7 Tennis Courts and a Swimming Pool 8 AF,R.[Et== 201 Carnation Ave 114 DU Apartment 16 DU Condomin[urn City of Irvine 10 Element Hotel 17668 AYn1b� N/A 122 Room Fxmnaled Stay Hotel 11 Diamond Jamboree Southwest Center of N/A 25,362 GSF Office Millie an' Alton 12 Irvine Crossing 17836 Gillette and 107,629 GSF Warehouse 178,500 GSF Office 17871 Von Kannan 4,726 GSF Office 1.3 Central Park NomhwneS confer of _ 240,970 GSF Warehouse 1,380 DO Residential Jamboree /Michelson 74,774 GSF Office 90,000 GSF Office, 19,700 GSF Retail 14 Metlife 2567 Main Street 48.712 GSF Office 481 DU Residential 86,000 GSF Industrial 15 Essex 2,552 Kelvin Avenue WA 132 DU Residential 16 The Loos 2300 Dit +ont 1), ice NIA 116 DU Residential 17 Avalon 1 2701 Alum Parkway 42,187 GSFOfTtce 280 DU Residential 6,1332 GSF [ndusinu 18 2801 Alton Parkway NIA 178 DU Residential 14 Playa III &' 300Ci Seholarxhi NtA 105 DU Residential 20 Carlyle 2201 Malin Court N/A 156 DU Residential 21 Granite Cam! 17421 Mm rlv Avenue 4,229 GSF Office 71 DU Residential 22 2801 Kelvin Avenue N/A 248 DU Residential 23 17352 Von Kannan N/A 32,066 GSF Office. 67-698 GSF Warehouse 24 Metropolis 2500 Main and 23,957 GSF Office 457 DU Residential 17872 Carwri+In 90,053 GSF Indushiel 25 Aloft Extended Stay Hotel 2320 Main .Street N/A 170 Rooms 26 HINES 189B2 Teller and 25,828 GSF Office 785,000 Office 2722 Michelson 153,727 GSF lndustrial 15,500 GSF Retail 27 Park Place Napheast comer of 2,649,220 GSF Office 3.697,770 GSF Office Jamboree Road / 127,419 GSF Retail 350,000 GSF Retail Michelson hive 232 DU Residential 2.008 DU Residential, 308 Ilwal Rooms 28 2851 Anon 2851 Anon 12.700 CST Office 171 DU Residential 66,100 GSF Industrial 29 Martin Street Residential 18831 Von Kannan and N'A $2 HIT Residential 2301 Martin 30 UCI LRDP UC hvinc N/A Campus D4aster Plan 31 Irvine Technology North of Campus 176,805 GSF Office 1,035 DU Multi - Family Center - PhaseI West of Jamboree Road 48,139 GSF Industrial 8,500 GSF Retail 24,624 GSF Retail 32 Sehode Bldg, 4 Fairchild Road bast of N/A 107,211 GSF Office Jamboree Road DU - Dwelling Umo, GSF =Gross Square Feed, $F- Square Feet t n Assumes 70% Oooapicd on ThGs ro'eq would not msuit in an increase in lralri'a generation. Uptown Newport Project -45- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Project No. I Bally I AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total City of Newport Beach 1 442 22 6 28 11 31 42 2 14,989 251 655 906 866 564 1,430 3 165 1 1 2 29 13 42 4 352 1.5 0 15 7 19 26 5 1,493 24 86 110 81 49 130 6 (1) 14,778 272 932 1,204 920 557 1,482 Total 32,219 585 1,680 2,265 1,920 1,233 3,152 City of Irvine 10 997 42 27 69 38 34 72 11 279 35 5 40 6 31 37 12 1,530 211 25 236 35 189 224 13 9,333 117 559 676 577 297 874 14 2,064 -76 174 98 166 -14 152 15 878 13 54 67 53 29 82 16 771 12 47 59 47 25 72 17 1,355 -33 105 72 101 5 106 18 1,184 18 73 91 72 39 111 19 698 11 43 54 42 23 65 20 1.037 16 64 80 63 34 97 21 425 I 28 29 28 10 38 22 1,649 25 101 126 100 54 154 23 594 60 10 70 13 56 69 24 2,148 -48 168 120 162 8 170 25 1,389 58 37 95 53 47 1.00 26 7,955 939 124 1,063 192 864 1,056 27 71,610 5,568 1,711 7,279 2,483 5,759 8,242 28 537 -46 58 12 1 54 -24 " 30 29 545 8 33 41 33 18 51 30t2t 69,490 3,258 1,926 5,184 2,682 3,461 6,143 31 2,978 - 219 338 119 291 -109 182 32 1,017 131 18 149 24 117 141 'Total 106,978 6,931 3,446 10,377 46318 _2,484 L 1,802 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers publication Trio Generation, 8th Edition unless otherwise noted of Source: City of Newport Beach 'trip Generation Rates UCI LRDP 2007 Update Traffic Stud - Total net increase over existing Uptown Newport Project -46- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 -47- C Q C F C O � t O � m L C d C EE WE Z ZC16i es x LL) QY1�yL S INIM -r �Gk ry r r mo UIH th 4E p9 E°r Mkl-� a-UIkP a E. 2� a -Im]� _Ui � E � i S Wlk-s IMk �R r WmM�L -� � T r umy1r� S rWlir €� `u Iris -+ En S Wq-r Ea �-UTA g, mu 1 L L IgtMl -r rlPb >E i r ypp -r IIJa -r a$ IWI-r � r - Y i E' IE4-r �_ n a `4 11108 -r �E £$ Wn Ems Kam` � r '� r.E. r ��'n EE v WI1M -+ r- WWU��£•.. uFd 03 mm .-Vb 4 Nk-r Y laG-r $. W1M1 -r rr Es IM[� -r s ��, _ � „.aSr p-r r Im1M -r IW"�7r frcOxl� -r c a 2 ¢Yf-r a E r I1S�RM� I �Im S t _ $ o x E INt-s E a u IXIE[ -r c a q 4Nn-r IWdv � i r U) W J 0 LLU W LL_ O Y ILLI M U) F- U w 0 a w P V Li U Year 2018 . Cumulative Conditions without- Proiect Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project peak hour traffic volumes for all study intersections are shown on Figure 17, Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project intersection operations are summarized on Table 1.1. As was the case with the TPO Analysis, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project: • 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street (PM: LOS F) a 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 In this scenario, project- related peak hour traffic volumes for Phase I of the Uptown Newport project were added to the Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project traffic volumes. The resulting Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 peak Pour volumes are shown on Figure 18. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 12. The following intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1: 19, Jamboree Road at Main Street (PM: LOS F) • 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at any of these intersections, and would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Phase I trips. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project - related impact of the project at Borne of the study intersections would be negative, once again reflecting the reduction in existing office trips, which would more than offset the trips that would be added as a result of the proposed residential development in the evening peak hour at some intersections. As a result, some intersections would improve slightly as a result of the project. Uptown Newport Project -49- K.imley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 O C E °m c �0 a 6 r�$ae u Hu�d� 00 1: x x i> FY in W J 0 U LL LL 1° M O Y W d U W CL CL D O r z Z O F Z O U W h J D U ti00 W N X 0: D (W LL i 191p� E� 114 r1oM`� `ow. e- VO%4&, ffi.q o-1W� f 14 � C^ 14 I�¢Nq ��y14.r 14 E, 14 Mine 8� t L�ro� a 9 rrt�,a� g� 114 "�'�' � 14rMLM g MLkaS §�� >E HRMt^a �9� °4 IraWpy S. aV 64eHIS® r r mG l^-1uk 1trIm hm m,M Q g5 kk -14 � k[ N ate., ffiy^ � 5 ®� 14'-u� U®MU ffi s llL:rnx ,h E`g, 1t4 Ismltw mim, �° 114 IWe,9i M,M °u fwibleS �`. IeIDVS �' IrizWa � kbLy �� ri� b,IHN IctlBtS £ 114x( tr[ C 14 lab 11 W4 LLwb4 0, 11 q 114 IerM a g,i f i r E ffi 1 4 q mLw4._. j c -"'e= -s, Mw f r m�•`•,��'�la [im °ma 0�`Wtlt2i gag ��`- Imlre'ap` Qa'"1[aYaL: tl- '�IYJwn Qm WWI ITlMS � � E Iv¢HIt-^ '• c� ( ro�aa ut-. i r �a ai 1 4" 1 4 Mw; �z t1Srn� p 114�IwYC Isom -^ L 14 wLke -^ e law, -� mare-• na .n QYILb04 -r ffi. ([BiLMa (IW.WI Sir E IWI�FE -� i t m,bm4 -i j p NUIID -r 1 i r _ 1 1 r E ? r s E °Mrs S i r E "ae 1 r °cs MtLea 1 P a$ I` utn-L - gg a w rm -, - -F o� la -_@-& • - ui4 s-�,l - rlm m lr ,4-, IM�nS ma A ,w-� rom wt -. 5E_ WI N _ in W J 0 U LL LL 1° M O Y W d U W CL CL D O r z Z O F Z O U W h J D U ti00 W N X 0: D (W LL i TABLE 11 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2018 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Interseetion I UYS I AM 7 MacArthur Btvd/Mam St S 1 0.60 1 A 1 0,78 1 C 2 MacArdmr Blvd/( -405 NB Ramps a S 0.77 1 C 1 0.71 C 13 MacArthur B3vd/I -405 S73 Ramps "I S 1 0,6 I 0$0 C 4 MacArRan Blvd/Michelson Dr a S 0.65 B 0.1)2 E 5 MacArthur Blvd/Campus Dr a S 0.63 B 0.89 D 6 MacArthur Blvd/Birch St S 0.42 A 0.51 A 7 MacArthur Bhd/Von Kerman Ave S 0.67 B {7.54 A 8 MacArthur Blvd/Jambmee Rd a.b S 0.78 C 0.89 D 9 MacArthur B1vd/Pairchild Rd a S 0.89 D 0,55 A 10 MacArthur Blvd NB Off- ramp /University Dr S 0.52 A 0.62 B 11 MacArthur Blvd SB Off- ramp/University Dr S 039 A 033 A 12 Von Karmen AvelMain St a S 0.81 D 0.87 D 13 IVon Karman Ave/Michelson Dr a S 0.70 B 0.91 E 14 lVort Kannan Ave/Dupont Dr a S 0.50 A 0.61 B IS Ivan Karmen Ave/Campus I7r a S 0.67 B 0.88 D 16 Von Kannan Ave%Birch St S 033 A 0.40 A 17 "Feller Ave /Campus Dr a S 0.50 A 0.52 A 18 Teller Ave/Birch St U 123 B 11.6 B 19 Jamboree RdAlain St a S 0.91 E 101 P 20 Jamboree 1Ld /1-405 NB Ramps 3.11 S 0.72 C 0.93 E 21 Jamboree Rd/1 -405 SB Ramps a,b S 0.88 D 095 F. 22 Jamboree Rd /Michelson Ur a S 0.82 D 1.18 F 23 Jamboree Rd/Impont Dr a S 0.76 C 0.75 C- 24 Jamboree RdiC7ampus Dr a S 0.71{9 C 0.82 D 25 Jamboree Rd/Birch St S 0.61 B 0.68 B 26 Jamboree Rd/'Fairchild Rd a S 0.71 C 0,74 C" 27 Jamboree Rd/Bristol St North S 0.38 A 0.61 13 28 Jamboree Rel/Brised St South S 037 A 0.61 B 29 Jamboree Rd/Bayview Way S 0.41 A 0.46 A 30 Jamboree Rd/University Dr S 0.65 B 0,66 B 31 Carlson Ave/Michelson Di a S 0.62 B 0.86 D 32 Carlson Ave /Campos Dr a S (164 B 0$1 lT 33 Harvard Ave/Michelson Dr S 0.74 C 0.85 D 34 Campus Dr /Bristol St North S 0.53 A 0.74 C 3,5 Birch St/Bristol St North S 0.56 A 0.59 A 36 Campus Dr4Bristol St South S 0.63 B 0'io A 37 Birth St/Bristol St South S 0.44 A 0.43 A 38 Bayview PI /Bristol St South S 0.45 A 0.50 A 39 Irvine AveRvlesa Dr _ S 0.37 A 0.57 1 A 40 University Dr /Campus Dr 0.85 D 0.84 D 41 Mesa RlUniaerehy lir 0.63 B .87 42 Calimmia Ave/University I7r JS 0.61 B 0.70 B 43 Birch St/Driveway 8.8 A 11.5 B Notes: a • fntzrsectian w located wfih4e the lrvtae Business CmnvttA Vieve Plan Area, (LOS 6,Acceplabul h -` o,ange CAa rn Cm,,vannn rower, inga Prep rarn,CMPI lnle[4e,,i n 11,"1 E An,vpwbu) S - Signalized, U =Uiiga rulnad Boid values indicate Intersections operetiag at an tancee oboe LOS. lmeraeuion ooenthon o expressed re average se rndx 4 delay per vehicle diver, the peak hour for unsignalued wlersections using VCAJ 2000 h6ethoanleo and is expressed in voiwne- to-capactty tort) fnr signaliza7 tatzrxecsiav axing iCU McHie6, gy. Uptown Newport Project - 51 - Kinney -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 o W cg gE 0 W W Y m e W Sc W � a® cmaa w Z 0 .9 o w a(D K K Nil U) W J 0 0 {fit. D 0 S X w d W Q li 1- a 0 0 0 0 0 ca co co W C'1 a LL. Y 71r Iwo__ t r itr •-tn�rs -wam €� 1lL�War.1 mrurav $y q ee y tLru.are, «wweu $9 __ dtbr�maa twilmi a p 114y; (we p�u., �+ m gg� k`$� J1L a�pu" aaiva mw UId6'1 _ 4[ON-s •, bF. INQf91" T IHFtf U 16¢M1W �UalbLLl –+ rr f INSWn –� r Enk 1NIWtt¢. -r �e l�N.a –r Grr u IRIpI -.. r ju We,bf –+_rr CP Mu[ti 30 Rrrow¢A'n�q� E. dNbtnJ r 5' r r ¢° F•.. A _ 'v Ra'b m 5Y=HffiIBv �+kR W� A ;m Ig W m � � q a— Rxiomt 1brWNm It Jws� r r m� °8 alb 2(�PoJIWi lodel r r 8 v 11brMbi bulre IvWssg � E °• 1brWro< (ml liro-r �Il r r &3 33 91 E ^� �re r g q � Iw@�Ic r qi Y (upm —� S E W�4s —+ E $ fMfM _g9g9r _r WRlvu —a a. ISeat—e r i. U) W J 0 0 {fit. D 0 S X w d W Q li 1- a 0 0 0 0 0 ca co co W C'1 a LL. Y U N C o N N U y � Q O a z m Y M N � T a� 0 Z E c - o o O o c o 0 o o o. o yc Z� Z Z Z Z Z z z z z'. Z.z z Z Z: z Z Z 'z Z Z Z Z z Z Z'. Z Z Z 'L Z 2 Z t 4 G o Z Z %+ Z Z Z. Z Z. zz Z Z Z Z Z Z 7_ Z. Z Z Z z Z Z. 'z 'Z Z Z z Z Z y o c b'o G, o O G o o'o:c o 0 o g c a o 0 0 0 o c oo!0 0 0 0 0 0 e a o OIO.O O C O C O10'O O C C O C O O O O C O O �p OO O O O O O VL3'W q¢¢ w¢ qQ❑ W Y A q L I rn� � b o ... � m m � N 1 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 o G o 0 " U w g d¢ Q¢ q¢ q d 4Q 6¢ q" UO roo g m¢ q O q q w O t� Z F 7 '" y - O N O. •_ h W vl N M I . .+ w O N d .�: M N N� ap eY .- .- b b bw .. � ¢ 3 x n+ 5o Y W= N r V tE N N R N (3 N N N R ci o z ti ro g= w ° a s �G �y Oc :n v, „`^.�, .°-' n coo _.�:.s u�Eo.� - r v a - � U - o E _ q q o o c c :. q > -'6, u'.. Z cG cG c4 cG o5 cY �' ,_ N cG � `0 `o c c 4 d d d d d Q d d d X �' o` s 0 0 s 0 :o E o` o 0 N o b `�. `� U .o s r s s .o' s'g .o -.. EE E E E E .� N M C n b:r oC P O- N a I b I co '.Q O �. N M - -- -- - N N N N N N N N N N U N C o N N U y � Q O a z m Y M N � T a� 0 Z E c - o Qz Z Z X Z 7 4 Z Z Z z x z z x 0. FIT OC 1 19 c C? 0 d o 0 12 F u 45i 6r F <1 <1 I J3 oaz <1 < I I -2� u Qz Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project peak hour traffic volumes for all study intersections are shown on Figure 19. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project intersection operations are summarized on Table 13. For this scenario, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project: • 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street: (PM: LOS F) • 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • 41. Mesa Road at University Drive (PM: LOS E) All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Full Project In this scenario, project - related peak hour traffic volumes for the full Uptown Newport project were added to the Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project traffic volumes. The resulting Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 20. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 14. The following intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project traffic: • 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street: (PM: LOS F) • 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) • 41. Mesa Road at University Drive (PM: LOS E) The project impact increment does not exceed the significance threshold at any of these intersections, and would not result in a significant impact with the addition of the full Project trips. All other study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. The project - related impact of the project at some of the study intersections would be negative, once again reflecting the reduction in existing office trips, which would more than offset the trips that would be added as a result of the proposed residential development in the evening peak hour at some intersections. As a result, some intersections would improve slightly as a result of the project. Uptown Newport Project - 55- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic bnpact Study November, 2012 "'b d 1•' Nb J 5 c 2 E VqwY Q Jtl � 0 E § ae f s B \ m e9 % LL s° LL Q'. LU tit CL ui W d d F Q a a � J Cf1 �,. N WN W �K 8£� LIB co it°, -(M�� 2 �' yl�y la[ Yu �NT r 9�33 ItAltkv�l[ -n � r E� IasulLe -+ � 11 r IMbI 'ck Tr f dx6ary �� jg {ryi�Z }��A a4 � dV ¢WR4ry ®r i p X 11gF�L r(¢1in c 14 (4e �°' 11 y1 �IW�k � .r �¢M 1 ¢� J1L n4llN lay.ba -. 7_AT r C gggggppg�� • °$°i k - �� ' x �� IswlxF rc � d Iw,ln+` W &W. Ixkr S�F�tilanf �3 � °-I¢tlud � L �� Yi� IPF x 1I r Ei.YIDlI -� 1Tr �Q �t Mffl -a I1 r mm MNti1 --� 11I fLL fi Irrl�ei -... �' @` Iunva aq` uu.-.. g i` �� bmKKw � (¢JN I¢ekaz &e mvna¢I 3 IAN1Wd .-IUab 1 L I,wrez tl 11 I¢o-¢ 11 L Iw a 1 4 a� s J ,.. -Iwvx �' �� ,� qtr E 1��a a w«- '� a u9ms g 3 °e IanMS �u' mm.¢ -� m 4auMa. 1 l wunx -, i t TABLE 13 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Intersection LIS Without Project AM Peak hour PM Peak Hour ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd /Main St a S 0.62 B 0.81 D 2 MacArthur Blvd/1 -405 NB Ramps a S 0.80 C 0.74 C 3 MacArthur Bivd /1 -405 SB Ramps a S 0.70 B 0.83 F) 4 MacArthm Blvd/Michelson Dr a S 0.67 B 0.96 E 5 MacArthur Blvd /Campus Dr a S 0.66 B 0.93 E 6 MacArthur Blvd/Birch St S 0.43 A 0.52 A 7 MacArthur Blvd/Von Kalman Ave S 0 -68 B 0.54 A MacArthur Blv&Jambrn'ee Rd a. t S 0.80 C t1.91 E MacArthur Blvd/Fairchild Rd a S 0.92 E 0.73 C. MacArthur Blvd NB Off-ramp /University Dr S 0.54 A 0.65 B [14 MacArthm� Blvd SB Off- ramplUniversity Dr S 0.39 A 0.33 A Von Karmon AvetMain St _ a S 0.85 D 091 E Von Karman Ave/Michelson Dr a S 0.73 C 094 E Von Kalman. Ave/Dupont Dr a S 0.53 A 0.64 B Von Kalman Ave /Campus Ui a S 0 70 B 0.92 E t6 Von Kansan Ave/Birch St S 0.33 A 040 A 17 Teller Ave /Campus Dr a S 0.52 A 055 A 18 Teller Ave/Bueh St U 12.3 B 11.6 B l9 Jamboree Rd /Main St a S 0.95 E 1,05 F 20 Jamboree Rdf1405 NB Ramps a-b S 0.75 C 0.97 F 2 t Jamboree Rd1 -405 SB Ramps a. 9 S 0.92 E 0.99 P. 22 Jamboree Rd /Michelson Dr a S 0.85 D 1.23 F 23 Jamboree Rd/Dupont Dr a S 0.79 C 0.78 C 24 Jamboree Rd/Campus Dr a S 0 -82 D 0.86 D 25 Jamboree Rd?Birch St S 0.64 B 091 C, 26 Jamboree Rd /Fairchild Rd a S 0.74 C 0.77 C 27 jamboree Rdl/Siistol St North S 0.39 A 0.62 B 28 jamboree Ral/Bristol St South S 0,57 A 0.62 B 29 Jamboree RdlBayvicvv Way S 0 -42 A 0.47 A 30 Jamboree RdAhuversity Dr S 0.66 B 0.67 B 31 Carlson Ave/Michelson Dr a S 0.65 B 0,89 D 32 Carlson Ave/Campus Fl a S 067 B 0.85 D 33 Harvard Ave/Michelson Dr S 0.77 C 0.89 D 34 Campus DoRtistol St North S 0.53 A 0.74 35 Birch SUBristot St North S 0.56 A 0.59 A 36 Campus Dr/Bristol St South S 0.63 B 0.51 A 37 Birch St,Bristol St South S 0,44 A 043 A 3S Bayview I'VBristol St South S 0.45 A 0.50 A 39 Irvine Ave/Mcsa Dr S 038 A 40 University Ur /Campus Or S 0 -88 1) 41 Mesa RdT- miversity Dr S 0.65 aA E 42 CaliFo-is AveUniversity Or S 0 -64 C 43 Birch SUDriveway U 8.8 B Notes a ^ luts,.e- cn is tma kndwahin the m=ine IIus'snass Ccs,lex Vision Plat Ana (LOS E Aecevatb6) 1, Unmge Comely (v,qc noa (Nutag.rent Pwrsn ((MP) Pwerswwa 1LCLY H.Acceptable) S m Signal, U =r),, analaed hoitl values indicate in4eaec6ons ovornting et mt urweceputble LOS. frameetion operation is axpwssed is nvtrage seconds of delay per vehicle dwmg the peak hour for wsigrnlizW intmre wro .,a, tic, N1 2(HVO Mathodolog and is exOVre�d to vDlnenrnfi- capiatity (.90) for sienalSrzd imerseefiens a59ag ICU 4fetSetiblatt . Uptown Newport Project -57- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 C O Dt Y E 0 p ~ E C E 0 �z =a c c n E m z3Ua:e jl �O I x >< x ix N Tg1µ��smm Eo ��sv�i[MOU &m � -uwMev aw hiioEav v`ni •. �lr- wMa °m� 1��I*nu= �IEl ax 1 E� E�IVaCmv r_r Fo fwovM[ -� G'A Z Y14 IvmLa -� -+ r.i 1 L 4pv# E o` 1 L �. -Itlys `o L $a rd841t4 -° d 1 L � -IStMw Cw l L rWVM luvk rr n i rr Ez E� IE r u_ — 4s � -mom r 4v Rllkd a mINR '� Ilaw[� gr F�9 I yo-s E� ng M, q a Er 11Lieiilm xrc§ 4�. d .. 14 maw `3 rm IDz. _ 114 mm�C�' ��1 a rbia` 1r rc 8E uw.a La1 rE a 3 — ,a. ad21 Jl neanl�' e a `a.° 11 Lr°i`u wee' onwc mE �. 1L bilks fvro m�, 14 " -faLW[ rf¢KK o a` y 114 �(nMw p IE� ytibnw Qo §fi" -mKMln u✓mi t55 r r E w iR Fq M vs lmv -s IucbS�. `a" 'a� �6 r` n (b,W 05tb'v WItlRR,e....�' ti u� IrvvM -[ Ell ms aka' �ry s •, mllNEi i L v- -vIDVER _ m9 1� Iowa` �t1 "'" 1 r E� r r 8 rmare -�... Y —1 1 r r r u Im�v -r u` ImvUp -v 1 GRe-s Iva[w4vlxx €� •« aE 1Lr4uNm i� a 11L Iwtlav <o E� lip �1L IN o`0 1Lr 3 L n IvIBWN luv�wa -. IEV4YU-y `off ( (.W,— a, gg .� r� IuzXVU -s „__ x wm IreIZME -+ .• ee a UmkK _ 0�� S N W J 0 U LL LL N O Y W a U W O w a J J LL LL S h N z O z z O U d J_ V N N u N C7 W LLY U N C � N N w � t0 Q O U E N > Q w O a Z C f6 G O S I rn U N O` T d a � a Z 3 � U O ^. C O O 0 0 0 0 0 0. O. O O O O O 0. O o c o o O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z z z Z t. E 0 0' o 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z c E - w a a - v - b v, v, ^ h W .- - �n y W��0000�0000.0 0000000 OOOOOCO00000.0 �0 a m 0 0❑ U g w w.Q ¢'.w U m 4 w w m w C< m cvw w iit ❑❑ U U m m¢ m Q❑ C S 5 > y .-. V7 vt ,D N h� ,O V Vl M .. �n V M O y M v1 M O .•. `LJ M� V V C v) � L u 5 � O y Z w 3 o.O m C m m m< m❑ :� < <❑ U¢ Q¢ ¢m w❑ U❑ m U Q¢¢ x m m U T-) O a . s s r az� r apr_ 0 0❑ U ❑w w¢ Q w U m¢ w w m m< U U m m Q m C ❑❑ OU m3az ;= im- o O m U m m x< m U w¢¢❑ <.¢ m w o w ❑'.V ❑ m U¢¢< m x m U TIM s Y 5 u Zoo b n n b D �D W O M h M O m. N M Vt Vl N ul ni N V V- n N b- h h N O O Q {z + V] V] R 9 N R N R in R R N CJ ❑ ❑ > j < E c .c °' ❑ o. p m N❑ A '.' y Q❑ �^ `y R CF.. O R❑ m V) ^j ✓1 R 'J � N �• CL ❑i ^J O VN .3 ❑ ❑ VJ .Z � r '� 'J F W .W � O ''S . m � ❑` FK iZ T i, C i ✓ c O—y °= F Lr' v O p c, c_ ❑ m o❑ y a h v 3 .y y y ay y0, F C ..".. m m gg � ❑ U m x m m m 'm m m x m 0.1 m c c c c c U m� O '� a�� a� •o o a 'o v v v C c F_' G¢¢ G < Q ¢< Q Z< Q n'.M O` - N N N N N N N N N N M M U N C � N N w � t0 Q O U E N > Q w O a Z C f6 G O S I rn U N O` T d a � a Z 3 � U O U N_ we o .N ro L U o y C ¢z C `o z .�i 0 U Y � T C � O U N O. z � 3 " � w O C O O O C O O C O Y• R a z z z z z z z z z z 4 O o o O c o 0 0 0 0 Z z z z Z 7_ z Z 'L Z _ a E � O en R _ N 0 0 M 0 0 0 O O W G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O b R � E C. L Vr non asaam¢¢¢onrom - o a x - H J �, ♦' W H D v: h� v v� m .o � � s ,� �cN o z - �a 3 v J L R - 0 C M .n b v v, h 1 w M w m -- �o �o m 6 w 0- ° U o } _ — E v 4 � tl ' M P G •� N M p M Ni V V V C U N_ we o .N ro L U o y C ¢z C `o z .�i 0 U Y � T C � O U N O. z � 3 " � w CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE 'The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was established in 1991, to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for State gas tax funds for local transportation projects. A copy oft he County of Orange CMP Highway System is provided in Appendix G. Within the project study area, the CMP Highway System includes two arterials: Jamboree Road north of MacArthur Boulevard, and MacArthur Boulevard south of Jamboree Road. CMP intersections in the vicinity of the project consist of: I -405 Northbound Ramps / Jamboree Road I -405 Southbound Ramps / Jamboree Road MacArthur Boulevard / Jamboree Road The following roadways are Congestion Management Plan (CMP) roadways: City of Newport Beach: City of Irvine: MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Road Newport Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway Irvine Center Drive Laguna Canyon Road The Orange County CMP states that "a TIA will be required for CMP purposes for all proposed developments generating 2,400 or more daily trips," and that "for developments which will directly access a CMP Highway System link, the threshold for requiring a TIA should be reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day. The project is estimated to generate over 8,000 daily trips, and will take access directly onto Jamboree Road, which is a CMP facility. As such, the project is required to comply with the CMP Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. The study area for a CMP analysis is defined by a measure of the project's significant impact on the roadway links. Significant impact is defined as links impacted by 3 percent or more of their LOS "E" capacity. The CMP states that, "If a. TIA is required only for CMP purposes, the study area would end when traffic falls below three percent of capacity on individual roadway links. If the TIA is also required for other purposes, additional analysis can be required by the local jurisdiction based on engineering judgment or local regulation as applicable. The forecasted daily project traffic volumes and LOS E percentages on the CMP facilities at the project study limits are shown on the CMP map in Appendix G. This demonstrates that the project daily trips do not exceed 3% of the Level of Service E capacity of these facilities, and that the traffic impact analysis is in compliance with CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements. The project impact at the CMP intersections was summarized in the previous section. The addition of project traffic will not cause a significant impact at the CMP intersections. The project would not cause a CMP intersection to fall below LOS E, and will not cause a cumulative increase of more than 0.10 in V /C. ratio at any CMP intersection with an established LOS standard worse than LOS E. Uptown Newport Project -61- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 ANALYSIS OF STATE HIGHWAY FACILITIES Intersections on State Highway Facilities Intersections on State Highway facilities, which are controlled by Caltrans, are also analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, as required by the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (State of California Department of Transportation, December 2002). In the vicinity of the project, I -405 and SR -73 are Caltrans facilities. Therefore, study intersections on or adjoining to these roadways will also be analyzed using the HCM intersection analysis methodology. Caltrans advocates the use of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection analysis methodology to analyze the operation of signalized intersections. The HCM methodology treasures average seconds of delay per vehicle based on a number of technical parameters, such as peak hourly traffic volumes, number of lanes, type of signal operation, signal timing, and signal phasing in the calculations, A description of each Level of Service, based on decay parameters, per the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is provided in the chart on the following page. For State - controlled intersections, Level of Service standards and impact criteria specified by Caltrans will apply. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that "Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target Level of Service at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" on State highway facilities. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the target LOS, the existing Level of Service is to be maintained." Traffic Impact Criteria The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies does not establish a threshold of significance for State Highway intersections. This traffic analysis uses the 'following traffic threshold of significance: A significant project impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection when the addition of project - generated trips causes the peak hour level of se rvice of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, 1;, or F). Uptown Newport Project -62- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS Signalized Level of Intersection Description Service Delay (sec) LOS A describes operations with a control delay of 10 seconds per vehicle or less and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when A <10 the volume -to- capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. If it is due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping. LOS B describes operations with control delay between 10 and 20 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to- capacity, ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned B > 10 and < 20 when the volume -m- capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. LOS C describes operations with conu'ol delay between 20 and 35 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the progression is favorable and the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle C > 20 and _< 35 failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. LOS D describes operations with control delay between 35 and 55 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. Thus level is typically assigned D 35 and < 55 when the volume -to- capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. LOS E describes operations with control delay between 55 and 80 seconds per vehicle and a volume -to- capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. Ibis level is typically assigned E > 55 and <80 when the volume -to- capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. LOS E describes operations with control delay exceeding 80 seconds per vehicle or a volume -to- capacity ratio greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the P > 80 volume -to- capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Many vehicles fail to clear the queue. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 Uptown Newport Project -63- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 State Highway Intersection Analysis Peak hour intersection analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology for the following State Highway study intersections: 0 2, MacArthur BoulevarcUl -405 NB Ramps 0 3. MacArthur Boulevardi1-405 SB Ramps 0 20. Jamboree Roadi1-405 NB Ramps 0 21. Jamboree Roadt1-405 SB Ramps Interssection analysis worksheets for all HCM analysis of State Highway intersections are provided in Appendix E. Existing Conditions Existing peak hour intersection operations for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on `rabic 15. Each of the State Highway study intersections currently operates at an acceptable Level of Service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions wit-$out Proiect Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 16. Each of the State Highway study intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service under Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project using the HCM delay analysis methodology. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I This scenario adds project - related peak hour traffic volumes for Phase i of the project to the Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project traffic volumes at the State Highway study intersections. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase 1 peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 17. With the addition of project traffic, the State Highway study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project peak hour operation for the State Higbway study intersections are summarized on 'Table 18. All State Highway study intersections would operate at an acceptable Level of Service under Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project scenario. Uptown Newport Project -64- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Proposed Project This scenario adds project - related peak hour traffic volumes for the full Uptown Newport project to the Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project traffic volumes at the State Highway study intersections. Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Proposed Project peak hour operation for the State Highway study intersections are summarized on Table 19. With the addition of project traffic, all State Highway study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service using the HCM delay analysis methodology. In some cases, the project - related impact would be slightly negative {i.e., a slight improvement in average delay }. This is because the conversion of land use from office to residential uses results is a shift in traffic patterns, and in some cases, the reduction it) existing office 'trips on some critical movements would more than offset the addition of the proposed residential trips. As a result, some intersection operations would improve slightly with the implementation of the proposed project. Uptown Newport Project -65- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 15 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection U/S ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 2 MacArthur Blvd /I -405 NB Ramps S 21.5. C 21.1 C 3 MacArthur Blvd /1 -405 SB Ramps S 19.8 B 193 B 20 Jamboree Rd/I -405 NB Ramps S 14.9 B 8.8 A 21 Jamboree Rd/1 -405 SB Ramps S 21.9 C 17.8 B Notes: S = Signalized Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or E. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the HCM 2000 Methodology. Uptown Newport Project -66- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 16 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2018 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection U/S ICU! Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 2 MacArthur Blvd/I -405 NB Ramps S 21.3 C 19.8 B 3 MacArthur Blvd /I -405 SB Ramps S 20.1 C 20.8 C 20 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 NB Ramps S 18.7 B 11.2 B 21 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 SB Ramps S 24.6 C 33.9 C Notes: S — Signalized Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or P. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the 14CM 2000 Methodology. Uptown Newport Project -67- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 §) {2 / 2 \) {/ \) }/ \ { ) 2 z 2 » ! � 2 f � { � - Un \\ ; « ez => - z °�= w - °�~ [$_!� } � ° un ) 2 _ � § \ ) ) / cn _- / _ * : \ 2 J ) \ . \ \ \�E \\- §) {2 / 2 \) {/ \) }/ TABLE 18 UPTOWN NEWPORT PROJECT SUMMARY OF STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION OPERATIONS YEAR 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Without Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection U/S ICU/ Delay LOS ICU/ Delay LOS 2 MacArthur Blvd/1-405 NB Ramps S 21.9 C 20.3 C 3 MacArthur Blvd/I -405 SB Ramps S 20.5 C 21.5 C 20 Jamboree Rd /1 -405 NB Ramps S 19.1 B 12.4 B 21 Jamboree Rd /1-405 SB Ramps S 27.0 C 42.3 D Notes: S = Signalized Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F. Intersection operation is expressed in average seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour for signalized intersections using the NCM 2000 Methodology. Uptown Newport Project -69- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 \/ }7 \ �4 {\ \\ =e \2 \ E 2 2 2 ) / i z 2 > 2 ! ! » 2 » g z - )) �u2- \wz 2j ¥w - :- ® ) -T : -- \./ \/ }7 \ �4 {\ \\ =e Freeway Mainline Analysis Analysis of freeway mainline segments in the vicinity of the project was conducted in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which specifies application of the H(.,M methodology for freeway analysis. Freeway analysis results are expressed in terms of density, which measures the number of passenger cars per lane mile (pc/mi /ln) on the freeway mainline. The target Level of Service (LOS) for freeway mainline segments is LOS "D," which is a density of between 35 and 45 pe /milln. If the existing density exceeds the target LOS, the existing Level of Service is to be maintained. Freeway mainline analysis was conducted on the I -405 Freeway (San Diego Freeway) between Culver Drive and the SR -55 Freeway and on the SR -73 (San J oaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) between Bonita Canyon Drive and the SR -55 Freeway. Peak hour freeway volumes were derived from the Caltrans website. The most recent data available was 2010. A conservative growth factor of 1.0% per year was applied to 2010 traffic volumes to derive Existing and Future Year cumulative baseline traffic volumes. Freeway analyses were conducted using the HCS+ software, operational methodology. The results of the analysis are expressed in terms of vehicular density in each peak hour, in each direction, as discussed above. All freeway analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix P. A summary of the results of the freeway mainline analysis for each study scenario are presented below. F2 istina Conditions Existing peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the morning and evening peak hours„ by segment, and by direction for the 1-405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Tables 20 and 21, respectively. These tables indicate that the following freeway segments are currently operating at below the target level of service: • 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) Northbound • Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E: AM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jet. SR -55 (LOSE: AM peak hour) 0 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) Southbound • MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road (LOSE: PM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to Culver Drive (LOS E: PM peak hour) + SR -73 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) Northbound o Jamboree Road to Jet. SR -55 (LOSE: PM peak hour) All other study freeway segments are currently operating at LOS D or better during both peak hours. Uptown Newport Project -71 - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR 1 -405 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2011) Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak flour PM Peaklloar Volume Density (pChuiliu} LOS Volume Densitp (pctmitin) LOS I -405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 12,744 33.1 D 9,356 243 C Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard C MacArthur Boulevard to 1CL. Rte, 55, Costa Mesa Freeway 6 13,749 35.7 E 10,094 26.2 D 1405 Southbound R T. Rte. 55, Costa Mesa Freeway to MacArthur Boulevard 6 10,663 27.7 D 13,041 339 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 0,450 32.6 D 12,781 39.9 E jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 9,884 30.8 D 12,088 1 37,7 E Uptown Newport Project -72- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. "Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 21 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2011) Freewav Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density (pelmittn) LOS Volume Density (i clmilln) LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr/Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,579 14.0 B 3,526 19.1 C Jamboree Road to JCT. Rte. 55 4 6,892 27.5 D 9,405 37.5 L SR -73 Soutbbound JC'T, Rte. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 7,737 30.8 D 7,250 28.9 D .tamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 3 2,896 15.8 B 2,714 14.8 B Uptown Newport Project -73- Kimley -Horn and Associates„ Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 Existing Conditions with the Full PrWect, Existing plus Project peak hour freeway volumes were derived by adding the traffic from the full Uptown Newport project to the existing volumes. Results for the morning and evening peak hours, by segment, and by direction for the 1 -405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Tables 22 and 23, respectively. These tables indicate that all previously - deficient segments would continue to be deficient; no new Freeway segments would become deficient. Year 2018 Cumulative Conditiong wjthaut Proieet Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions consists of Existing plus Growth plus Committed and Cumulative Projects traffic. Year 2018 Cumulative without Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the 1 -405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Tables 24 and 25, respectively. These tables indicate that the following freeway segments are forecast to operate at below the target level of service: 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) Northbound • Culver Drive to Jamboree Road (LOSE: AM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E: AM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jct. SR -55 (LOSE: AM peak hour) • 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) Southbound • Jet. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard (LOSE: PM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road (LOSE: PM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to Culver Drive (LOS E: PM peak hour) + SR -73 (San Joaquin Hills T ransportation Corridor) Northbound o Jamboree Road to Jet. SR -55 (LOSE: PM peak hour) Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Phase I Traffic from Phase I of the pr oject was added to Year 2018 Cumulative Conditions without Project conditions. 2018 Cumulative Conditions with Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the 1 -405 and SR -73 freeway are summarized on Tables 26 and 27, respectively. These tables indicate that all previously - deficient segments would continue to be deficient, and that the proposed project would have little impact on the analyzed freeway segments. The addition of project- related traffic would not cause additional freeway segments to operate at LOS E or worse, and would not cause the Level of Service to worsen on any segment already operating at LOS E or worse. Uptown Newport Project -74- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 'traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR I -405 EXISTING: CONDITIONS (2011) PLUS FULL PROJECT Freeway Segment Laaes AMPeakHour PM Peak Hour Volume De$try (pe /nifir LOS Volume Density (Density) LOS 1 -405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 12,755 33.2 D 4,435 24,5 C Jamboree Road to MaeActbur Boulevard b 53,504 35A E 4,900 253 C MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mesa Freeway b 13,824 35.9 E LQt25 26.3 D 1 -405 Southbound AT, Ric, 55, Costa Mesa Freeway to MacArthur Boulevard 6 10,672 27.7 D 13,119 34.1 D MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 10,447 32.6 D 12,811 40.0 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 9,959 .31.1 D 12,123 37.8 B Uptown Newport Project -75 - Kimtey -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 23 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 EXISTING CONDITIONS (2011) PLUS FULL PROJECT Freeway Segment Laoes AM Peak Hour PM Peak flour Volume Density (pc /mi /ln) LOS Volume Density (pc /miAn) LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,579 14.0 B 3,520 19.1 C Jamboree Road to JCT. Rte. 55 4 6,912 27.9 D 9,45Q 373 E SR -73 Southbound JCT, Rte. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 7,T37 30.8 D 7,357 293 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 3 2,896 15.8 B 2,714 14.8 B Uptown Newport Project -76- Kimley -Horn . and associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR I -405 2078 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density LOS Volume Density LOS 1405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 13,688 35.6 E 10,049 26.1 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,447 37,6 E 10,607 27.6 D Ma0ortivir Boulevard to JCT, Rie, 55, Costa Mesa Fwy 6 14,752 383 E i{i,83o 28.1 D 1 -405 Southbound JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mesa Ewy to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,441 29.7 D 13,992 36.4 E MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,204 349 D 13,703 42.7 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 10,616 33.1 D 12,985 40.5 E Uptown Newport Project -77- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 25 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 2018 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density (Pc/m1 /In) LOS Volume Density (Pe /mLlm LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,765 15.0 B 3,811 20.7 C Jamboree Road to JCL. Rte. 55 4 7,404 29.5 D 10,207 40.7 E SR -73 Soutbbound JCT. Rte. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 8,312 331 D 7,867 31.4 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr/Ford Rd 3 3,105 16.9 B 2,939 16.0 B Uptown Newport Project - 78- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 26 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR 1-405 2018 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH PHASE 1 Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak flour Volume Density (pdmf/In) LOS Volume I Density {p0mVln) LOS 1 -405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 13.696 35.6 E 10,095 262 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,468 37.6 E 10,616 27.6 D MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mesa Fwy 6 14,794 38.4 E 10,851 28.2 D 1405 Southbound JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mesa Fwy to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,448 29.7 D 14,014 36.4 E MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,206 34.9 D 13,726 42.8 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 10,658 332 D 13,031 40.6 E Uptown Newport Project -79- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 2018 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH PHASE 1 Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak our PM Peak on Volume Density (pc /mi /In) LOS Volume Density (pc/milln) LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr/Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,765 I5A B 3,811 20.7 C Jamboree Road to JCT. Rte. 55 4 7,459 29.7 D 10,236 40.8 E SR -73 Southbound JCT. Rte- 55 to Jamboree Road 4 8,327 332 D 7,929 31.6 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Dr /Ford Rd 3 3,105 16.9 B 2,939 16.0 B Uptown Newport Project Traffic Impact Study 80- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. November, 2012 Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Protect Year 2021 Cumulative without Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the I -405 and SR -73 freeways are summarized on Tables 28 and 29, respectively. The se tables indicate that the following freeway segments are forecast to operate at below the target level of service: 1-405 (San Diego Freeway) Northbound • Culver Drive to Jamboree Road (LOSE: AM peak hour) • Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (LOS E: AM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jet. SR -55 (LOS E: AM peak hour) • I -405 (San Diego Freeway) Southbound • Jet. SR -55 to MacArthur Boulevard (LOSE: PM peak hour) • MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road (LOS E: AM and PM peak hours) • Jamboree Road to Culver Drive (LOSE: PM peak hour) • SR -73 (San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor) Northbound o Jamboree Road to Jet. SR -55 (LOS E: PM peak hour) Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions with the Full Protect Traffic from the full Uptown Newport project was added to Year 2021 Cumulative Conditions without Project conditions. 2021 Cumulative Conditions with Project peak hour freeway volumes and analysis results for the I -405 and SR -73 freeway are summarized on Tables 30 and 31, respectively. These tables indicate that all previously- deficient segments would continue to be deficient, and that the proposed project would have little impact on the analyzed freeway segments. The addition of project- related traffic would not cause additional freeway segments to operate at LOS E or worse, and would not cause the Level of Service to worsen on any segment already operating at LOS E or worse. Uptown Newport Project - 81 - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 28 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR 1-405 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak flour PM Feak Honr Volume Density (pclmiAn) Los Volume Density (pelmilin) LOS 1-405 Northbound Culver Drive to Jamboree Road 6 14,103 36.7 E 101354 26.9 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,885 38.1 E 10,428 28A D MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rte. 53, Costa Mesa Fwy 6 15,198 39.5 E 11,358 29.0 D 1-405 Soulbbound JCT Rte, 55, Costa Mesa Fwy to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,787 30.6 D 14,416 37.5 E Mae Arthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,543 36.0 E 14,118 44.0 E Jamboree Road to Culver chive 5 10,938 34.1 D 13,378 41.7 E Uptown Newport Project -82- Klmle} -Ilonr and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 29 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 1021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Density (pdmVSu) LOS Volume Density LC)$ SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn Dr/Ford Rd to Jamboree Read 3 2,849 155 B 3,927 21.4 C Jamboree Road to JCT. Rte. 55 4 7,624 30.4 D 1t3,5t6 41.9 E: SR -73 Southbound JCT. Rte. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 8,564 34.2 D 8,106 32.3 D Jamboree Road to Bonita Cyn Ck/Ford Rd 3 3,199 17.4 B 3,028 16.5 B Uptown Newport Project -83 - Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 30 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR I -405 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH FULL PROJECT Freeway Segment Ganes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Bour Volume Density (pc/mi /ln) LOS Volume Density (pc /mi/In) LOS '.. I -405 Northbound CulvffDrive to Jamboree Road 6 14,114 36.7 E 10A33 27.1 D Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard 6 14,914 38.8 E 10,935 28.4 D MacArthur Boulevard to JCT. Rte. 55, Costa Mesa Fwy 6 15,273 39.7 E 7 1,189 29.1 D I -405 Southbound JCT. Rte, 55, Costa Mesa Ewy to MacArthur Boulevard 6 11,796 347 D 14,494 3T7 E Mac Arthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road 5 11,540 36.0 E 14.148 44.1 E Jamboree Road to Culver Drive 5 11,013 34.4 D 13,413 41.8 E Uptown Newport Project -84- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 TABLE 31 SUMMARY OF FREEWAY MAINLINE OPERATION FOR SR -73 2021 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH FULL PROJECT Freeway Segment Lanes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vahtme Density (pe:millm LOS Votume Density (pclmi4n} LOS SR -73 Northbound Bonita Cyn JA,/Ford Rd to Jamboree Road 3 2,849 15.5 B 3,927 21.4 C Jamboree Road to JCT. Rte. 55 4 7,729 30.8 D 10,561 421 H SR -73 Southbound JCT. Rte. 55 to Jamboree Road 4 8,564 34.2 D 8,213 32.7 D Jamboree Road to Bonita (.yn Dr/Ford Rd 3 3,199 17. <L B 3,028 16.5 B Uptown Newport Project -85- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc, Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 SITE ACCESS AND ON -SITE CIRCULATION Existing Circulation Currently, access to the existing project site is provided at two locations along Jamboree Road and one location along Birch Street. On Jamboree Road, access to the site is via a four -way signalized intersection at Jamboree Road and Fairchild Drive, with the project site entrance terming the fourth leg of the intersection; and a stop - controlled intersection approximately 800 feet north of the signalized intersection. The-unsignalized intersection currently allows all turning movements to and from Jamboree Road. On Birch Street, access to the site is provided at a stop - controlled intersection approximately 560 feet west of the signalized intersection of Jamboree Road and Birch Street. All turning movements are allowed at this driveway. Access to this driveway from the Conexant property is via an access easement across the adjacent property immediately to the north (between the Conexant property and Birch Street.) Phase 1 Circulation The proposed circulation for Phase 1 is shown on Figure 21. The proposed Upper Newport project would continue to access Jamboree Road at two points. The existing signalized intersection at Fairchild Road would remain. The unsignalized intersection to the north would be relocated approximately 175 feet to the north This entrance would allow right- turn -in- and -out and left -turn in movements. Left turns out would be prohibited by signage, as well as a raised median on Jamboree Road. The main signalized entry is shown to be 46 feet wide with two inbound lanes, and two outbound lanes. The on -site roadways would be up to 36 feet wide with sidewalks on both sides, and would provide direct access to the parking areas associated with each building. The internal street system, as shown, is in compliance with City policy that requires a minimum of 36 feet curb to curb for private streets with parking on both sides of the street, and a minimum of 32 feet for streets with no parking, or parking on one side of the street. A traffic circle feature in the middle of the site would provide retail patrons the ability to return to the main Fairchild/Jamboree entrance after leaving the parking areas adjacent to the retail site. The roadway system would be privately owned and maintained, but would be open to the public. A gated emergency only access to the adjacent Kell property would be provided at the southwest corner of the site. Connections to the adjacent Jazz property would also be gated, as shown on Figure 20. Therefore, there would be no access from the Phase 1 Uptown Newport development to the Birch Street driveway. Phase 2 Circulation The proposed circulation for Phase 2 is shown on Figure 22. With development of the entire site, the roadway system would be expanded to include access to the rest of the site, and re- connection to Birch Street, via the access easement across the adjacent property. A discussion of this easement and the impact of the project traffic on the Birch Street driveway is provided in the next section. Uptown Newport Project - 86- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic impact Study November, 2012 r _o> nq � } � 3 yv r° o V m.� a Lfv c+ N N w LL z 5. n z' O QH _I D U a U w c m N ® c AL m- FLJ1 �If il.11 it m Z 1� CL z 0 fY w w ry CJ) D LL The main signalized entry on Jamboree Road at Fairchild is shown to provide approximately 300 feet of queuing before the 90- degree turn in the road. With two outbound lanes, this would provide sufficient queuing distance before the 90- degree bend to accommodate the project's outbound peak hour traffic for both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The site plan shows diagonal parking adjacent to the retail portion of the project; on one side of the main entry drive (the inbound lane) and on both sides of the spine street after the 90- degree bend. The diagonal parking on the main entry drive is located less than 100 feet of Jamboree Road, which means that a car backing out of the spaces nearest Jamboree Road would potentially block the inbound lane momentarily, leaving only two or three car lengths of inbound lane distance. Likewise, the diagonal parking on the main spine is located within 50 feet of the 90- degree bend, posing a potential sight distance problem. The location, operation, and configuration of the parking and drive aisles in this area should be reviewed carefully with City staff during the site plan review process. Access Easement to Birch Street The access easement across the adjacent property that allows access from the Conexam property to Birch Street has been in place for over 30 years. The project access plans indicate that the project would not have access to the Birch driveway during Phase 1, but would have access to Birch Street through the easement at completion of the project. This discussion has been prepared to provide a comparison of existing and proposed peak hour traffic volumes and an evaluation of level of service at this driveway. Current peak hour turning movement traffic volumes at the Birch Street driveway are shown on Figure 23. This intersection is currently operating at LOS A in the morning peak hour and LOS B in the evening peak hour. The peak hour turning movement volumes reflect the predominance of employment uses on the site, with very light outbound traffic volumes and heavier traffic flows inbound in the morning peak hour, with a reverse pattern in the evening peak hour. A component of this traffic would be removed with the development of the Uptown Newport project, and replaced with residential traffic flows. As discussed earlier, residential uses would have the reverse traffic patterns — heavier traffic flow outbound from the project site in the morning peak hour, and heavier traffic flow inbound toward the project in the evening peak hour. With removal of the two existing office and industrial buildings, and development of the proposed residential uses, the morning and evening peak hour turning movement volumes at the Birch Street driveway would be as shown on Figure 22. Comparison of the two shows that the traffic flows would be reversed compared to existing, with an increase in outbound traffic and a decrease in inbound traffic in the morning peak hour, with a reverse pattern in the evening peak hour. The intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS B and C in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The driveway would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service as an unsignalized intersection. The intersection would accommodate the changes in traffic patterns resulting from the proposed project, and would not require signalization or widening. Uptown Newport Project -89- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 -46119 21/25 — �pp Il PROJECT SITE Existing Driveway Volumes In and Out of the Project Site L,--- 30/55 10161 M M PROJECT SITE Future With Project Driveway Volumes In and Out of the Project Site LEGEND: xxtyy AM /PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes FIGURE 23 .. _q0_ Birch Street N 0 3/15 —� 6146 —y A K m O M E N N (R NOT TO SCALE N Nl iG <— 1/10 2116 Fairchild Road 0/3 v 1111 "y � Birch Street QD (MJj ifn 38164 --may R 0 w O E E v N (i) NOT TO SCALE N Nl i� <— 6127 1361146 - "'� Fairchild Road 5130 — c 264!244 n- ti Kimsey —Horn on Assoctc {es, tnc. G CONS`IRUCTION TRAFFIC The Project construction activities would include the demolition of the existing office / industrial buildings on site and the construction of the proposed Uptown Newport development. Construction activities would include site clearing, grading and excavation, and construction of structures and site features. Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and pavers would be required during various construction phases. Large equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the construction phase and kept on site until its term of use ends. A staging area would be designated on- site to store construction equipment and supplies during construction. Throughout construction, the size of the work crew reporting to the site each day would vary depending on the construction phase and the different construction activities taking place at the time. Parking for workers would be provided on -site during all phases of construction. Construction workers world not be allowed to park on local streets. If needed during the peak construction periods, off -site parking will be provided, and workers will carpool or be Shuttled to the worksite. Phase 1 will include demolition of the 4311 Jamboree Road office and ind ustriai building and support facilities. Demolition activities will include demolishing and removing the building, foundations and footings, and the asphalt parking lot and light fixtures. It i s estimated that approximately 12,800 cubic yards of construction debris and concrete will need to be removed from the site. Grading of the Phase I portion of the site will involve a combination of cut and 'fill activity, suet) that there will be a virtual balance of cut and fill on the site. T his assumes a single level of underground parking. If a sec end underground level is needed, an estimated 90,000 cubic yards would need to be exported from the site. Assuming a capacity of 12 to 18 c ubic yards per truckload, depending on the size of the truck, demolition and grading activities will require removal of approximately 700 to 1,070 truckloads of demolition debris, and if needed, 5,000 truckloads of cut material. Assuming a three -month period for demolition for Phase 1, this would equate to an average of 10 to 20 demolition debris truckloads per day, and if needed, an average of approximately 40 to 60 truckloads of export cut material per day. Phase 2 will include demolition of the Jaz z building at 4321 Jam boree Road. It i s estimated that approximately 13,000 cubic yards of construction debris and concrete will need to be removed from the site. Grading of the Phase 2 portion of the site will involve a combination of cut and fill activity, such that there will be a virtual balance of cut and fill on the site. This assumes a single level of underground parking. if a second underground level is needed, an estimated 100,000 cubic yards would need to be exported from the site. Assuming a four -month period for demolition for Phase 2, this would equate to an average of 10 to 15 demolition debris truckloads per day, and if needed, an average of approximately 45 to 65 truckloads of export cut material per day. Based on the project phasing plan, building construction activity is estimated to be 54 months for Phase 1, and 45 months for Phase 2. The number of heavy vehicles associated with building construction will vary, depending on the construction materials required for the phase of construction underway at any given time. Uptown Newport Project _91- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 Construction Phase Daily Trip_ s - Demolition— Phase I - Heavy Trucks (Haul Debris) 6-10 - Construction Workers 9— 15 Demolition — Phase 2 - Heavy Trucks 6-10 - Construction Workers Grading and Earthwork —Phase I ^M - Haul Export Vehicles (if needed) 40 -60 - Construction Workers 30 — 42 Grading and Earthwork — Phase 2 - Haul Export Vehicles (if needed) 45-65 - Construction Workers / Vendors 32-46 Building Construction — Phased - Construction Workers / Vendors 289 Building Construction — Phase 2 Construction Workers / Vendors r 289 Source: SCAQMD— Building Construction Worker and Vendor Trip Study For each construction phase, the construction traffic volumes would be less than the current site traffic that will be eliminated when the project construction begins, and would be less than the future project traffic to be generated by the proposed project that has been the focus of this analysis. Heavy vehicles associated with demolition and construction would use the existing regional and local truck route network to approach the site, getting as close to the destination site as possible before turning off the designated truck route. The Applicant will be required to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles, and obtain a Haul Route permit from the City. Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles will be via Jamboree Road. Depending on the origin /destination (the nearest landfill, or the deposit site identified for cut material), trucks will either arrive and depart on Jamboree Road via the 1- 405 Freeway, to the north of the site,; or Jamboree Road via the SR -73 Freeway, to the south of the site. "Temporary delays in traffic may occasionally occur due to oversized vehicles traveling at lower speeds on local streets. Such delays would be occasional, and of short duration. These temporary delays would be considered less than significant. The project will be required to prepare a construction traffic manage'me'nt plan, which could include such things as requiring an encroachment permit for work in the public right -of way, limiting heavy truck activity during peak hours, using flag men to manage short -term traffic control, requiring a formal traffic control plan for extended street and lane closures, limiting time and duration of closures, or requiring a minimum number of lanes be open for travel during peak hours. ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL MODES The Uptown Newport project will consist of the development of 1,244 residential units and 1 1,500 square feet of commercial development. The introduction of residential units in an area that is largely developed Uptown Newport Project -92- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 with employment and commercial uses will facilitate the use of alternative travel modes, such as walking, biking, and public transit. The close proximity of a residential use to employment and commercial centers can serve as encouragement to the residents of the development to walk or bike to work or shop, rather than drive a vehicle. En order to encourage alternative modes of travel, and to help people to feel comfortable walking and biking, the project will also include traffic calming measures, 'The project Design Guidelines encourage the use of street chokers on internal streets to slow traffic, development of pedestrian -scale streets on the internal street system, and the use of enhanced paving at pedestrian connections to draw attention to the presence of pedestrians. Public Transit Existing transit service in the project vicinity was described earlier in the report, and the transit routes are depicted on Figure 5. Transit service is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) which offers service to destinations in Irvine and Newport Beach, as well as cities throughout ( )range County. The transit routes that serve the project area are already serving a significant employment -based area. As such, the transit schedules and frequencies are geared toward commuter needs, and will be convenient for residents of the Uptown Newport project, as commuters who will need early morning and mid- evening service in order to find public transit a convenient way to get to and from work. Bus stops for most of the transit routes are located within one - quarter to one -half mile of the main entrance to the project site. OC7" A routes serving the site provide frequent connections to UCI, the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), John Wayne Airport, the Newport Transportation Center, and multiple: other large and small shopping and employment centers. Pedestrian The Uptown Newport project will provide sidewalks throughout the project site, with multiple connections to the public street system and adjacent properties: Sidewalks will be provided along both sides of the main entry at Jamboree Road, leading directly to the crosswalks through the signalized intersection, which connect to Fairchild Road; Sidewalks will be provided along both sides of the secondary, unsignalized entry on Jamboree Road; - A third sidewalk connection to Jamboree Road will be provided between the two entry drives; - Sidewalks and pedestrian connections will be provided at several different locations between the project site and the adjacent Koll properties, to the west, giving residents who may work or have business "`next door" a convenient path to walk there. Uptown Newport Project -93- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 On -site sidewalks will typically be 5 feet wide, and separated from the roadway by a 10 -foot -wide landscaped parkway. These pedestrian connections to the surrounding area and the public street system shorten the walking distance to nearby destinations, including the nearest bus stop; and enhance; the opportunity to walk or take transit, rather than drive. Walkways between buildings (paseos) create a pedestrian - oriented environment by breaking up large blocks and providing more convenient connectivity throughout the project site. Bicycles For its entire length through the City of Newport Beach, Jamboree Road is currently designated on the City of Newport Beach Bike Map as "Okay to Ride on Sidewalk'. On the City's Bikeways Master Plan, Jamboree Road is shown as a Class I (off -road paved) bikeway. A copy of the City of Newport Beach Bike Map and Bikeways Master Plan are provided in Appendix H. Along the project frontage, Jamboree Road provides a meandering sidewalk within a landscaped parkway. The Uptown Newport plan provides for implementation of a future Class I Bike Trail along the project frontage on Jamboree Road, consistent with the City's Bikeway Master Plan. Other bicycle facilities in the project vicinity include Class 2 bicycle lanes (an on -road striped lane) on Campus Drive, and the "Okay to Ride on Sidewalk" designation on Von Karman from Mac Arthur Boulevard to Campus Drive, and on MacArthur Boulevard from Campus Drive to Jamboree Road. The City's Bikeways Master Plan shows that the Class 2 bike lanes on Campus Drive are to remain, and the bike facilities on MacArthur Boulevard and Von Karman Avenue are planned to be Class 1 bikeways. The sidewalk connections from the Uptown Newport site to Jamboree Road, and through the adjacent Koll property will provide convenient access for bicyclists to access the nearest existing and future bicycle facilities. Uptown Newport Project -94- Kintley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The proposed Uptown Newport project site is located at the southwest corner of Jamboree Road (north -south street) and Birch Street (east -west street) in the Airport Area of the City of Newport Beach. The project site occupies 25 acres within the larger Koll Center development. • The project site is currently occupied by two buildings: 4311 Jamboree Road, with 115,375 square feet of office use and 11,300 square feet of light industrial use; and 4321 Jamboree Road, with 52,947 square feed.' of supporting office use and 258,505 square feet of industrial use. + In Phase 1, only the 4311 Jamboree office building will be removed. Phase 1 of the Uptown Newport project would consist of 680 of the residential units, and 11,500 square feet of commercial development. + With the full project, all buildings on site would be removed. The full Uptown Newport project would consist of 1,244 residential units and 11,500 square feet of commercial development. + Forty -three (43) intersections were analyzed for potential traffic impacts. All intersections were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. In addition, four (4) intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to comply with Caltrans requirements. + Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. • Under Existing Plus Project Conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. + Under Year 2018 TPO Analysis without Project conditions, the following intersections would operate below an acceptable level of service. o 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) + Under Year 2018 TPO Analysis with Phase I conditions, this intersection would continue to operate below an acceptable level of service. The addition of project traffic would not cause additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, and the project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection. Uptown Newport Project -95- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 + Under Year 2021 without. Project conditions, the following intersections would operate below an acceptable level of service. 0 19. Jamboree Road at Main Street (PM: LOS F) 0 22. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (PM: LOS F) 0 41. Mesa Road at University Drive (PM: LOSE) + Under Year 2021 with Proposed Project (Full Project) conditions, these intersections would continue to operate below an acceptable level of service. The addition of project traffic would not cause additional intersections to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service, and the project would not result in a significant impact at any study intersection. • The traffic impact analysis was conducted in accordance with the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and is in compliance with the Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements of the CMP. The project would not cause a CMP intersection to fall below LOS E, and would not cause a cumulative increase of more than 0.10 in V/C ratio at any CMP intersection with an established LOS standard worse than LOS E. • A separate analysis of 'intersection on State Highways was conducted in accordance with Caltrans requirements. Intersection and freeway analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, in accordance with the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. + Based on the HCM intersection methodology, the addition of project - related traffic to State Highway intersections would not cause additional intersections to operate at LOS D or worse, and would not cause the Level of Service to worsen at any intersection already operating at LOS D or worse. • Freeway segments on the 1 -405 and SR -73 were evaluated based on the Caltrans freeway segment analysis methodology. The results show that the addition of project - related traffic would not cause additional freeway segments to operate at LOS E or worse, and would not cause the Level of Service to worsen on any segment already operating at LOS E or worse. + Access to the site is currently provided via two entrances on Jamboree Road; and one driveway on Birch Street, via an access easement across the adjacent property immediately to the north. + Access for Phase I would be provided by two driveways on Jamboree Road. Phase 1 would not have access to the Birch Street driveway. Access for Phase 2 (the Full Project) would be provided via the two driveways on Jamboree Road, and access to the Birch Street driveway via the access easement would be restored. A traffic circle feature in the middle of the site would provide retail patrons the ability to return to the main Fairchild/Jamboree entrance after leaving the parking areas adjacent to the retail site. Uptown Newport Project -96- Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 • The project site plan shows diagonal parking and a 90- degree turn on the main signalized entry road near Jamboree Road. The location, operation, and configuration of the parking and drive aisles along the main entrance road should be reviewed carefully with City staff during the site plan review process. • For the various construction phases, construction traffic volumes will be less than the traffic volumes currently generated by the existing site uses, and less than the future traffic volumes to be generated by the proposed project. The project will be required to submit a proposed haul route plan for approval by the City, and will be required to comply with construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flag men for short -term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures. • The project will incorporate physical and design features to encourage alternative modes of travel, such as walking, biking, and transit. Uptown Newport Project -97- Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study November, 2012 City Council Resolution No. 2013 -24 Page 36 of 36 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2012 -001 See Attachment CC24 of the February 26, 2013, City Council Staff Report. Exhibit F is also available for review at the offices of Planning Division of Community Development and City Clerk or at httpJtnewportbeaghca.gov II O TA0I.IA4WS0I¢iI February 26, 2013 Uptown Newport AHIP Page 1 LIntroduction ... .......... ......... ...... ... .......... ............................... ................................ .3 II. Project Description ................................................................ ..............................3 III. Affordable Housing Obligation-- .... -- .......... ............. .................. ......... --4 IV, Methods to meet Affordability Requirements .......................... ............. ............... 5 V. Definitions, — . - ..... ...... ............... ................... .............. - 5 Vi. Assurance of the Development of Affordable Housing, . ..................................... -8 VII. Phasing of the Affordable Housing Production....- . .... - ....... ........................ —8 VIII. Affordable Housing Agreement .............................................. ..............................9 IX. Amendments of the AHIP ...................................................... ..............................9 X. Successors in Interest. ... - ........................... ..... — ......................... .......... - 9 XI. Right to Assign ..................................................................... ............................... 9 Uptown Newport AHtP Page 2 L Introduction Uptown Newport consists of 25 acres of developed land located in the City of Newport Beach on the north side of Jamboree Road at the intersection of Fairchild Road. The property was originally developed as part of the Koll Center, and has been used for manufacturing telecommunications equipment and computer chips since the 1970's. The property currently includes two industrial buildings that are leased to multiple tenants including TowerJazz, who manufactures computer chips onsite. The property is currently accessed via two entries on Jamboree Road, a drive access via Birch, and a drive access via Von Karman Avenue, The City's General Plan allows for infll development and redevelopment of the Airport Business Area including up to 2,200 residential units. In September of 2010, the City approved the Koll - Conexant Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP), which provides a framework for residential development on both the Koll and Conexant properties within the Airport Business Area. The ICDP allocated a maximum of 1,244 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet of retail to be developed on the Uptown Newport (formerly Conexant) property, and up to 260 residential units to be developed on the Koll property. IL Project Description The Uptown Newport Planned Community Development Plan (PA2011 -134) project will include redevelopment of the 25 -acre property into a high - density mixed use residential project. Up to 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail, and 2 acres of park space are planned as part of the project. The project is anticipated to be developed in two primary phases. Phase 1 will include demolition of the existing single -story office building at 4311 Jamboree, and development of the westerly portion of the property, including the frontage along Jamboree Road. Phase 1 will include development of up to 680 residential units and up to 11,500 square feet of retail space, and is projected to commence in 2013_ Phase 2 will include demolition of the existing TowerJazz fabrication building, and development of approximately 564 residential units on the easterly portion of the property. The number of residential units planned to be developed is based upon replacement units allocated to the site based on conversion of existing office and industrial uses to residential uses, additive units allocated pursuant to the General Plan, and density bonus units allowed pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 -65918 ( "State Density Bonus Law ") and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.32 (the "Density Bonus Code"), On the Uptown Newport site, up to 632 units would replace the existing industrial and office uses which are to be demolished, 290 units are additive for a total of 922 units ("Base Units "). Up to 322 additional units can be developed as density bonus units pursuant to the State Bonus Density law and the Density Bonus Code. Uptown Newport ANIP Page 3 Replacement Units 632 Additive Units 290 Subtotal — Base Units 922 Density Bonus Units @ 35% 322 Total Units 1,244 The State Density Bonus Law and the City's Density Bonus Code provide for an increase in the number of units of up to thirty -five percent (35 %) above the maximum number of units allowed by the General Plan provided the project constructs a minimum number of affordable units depending upon what income category is served. At the maximum density bonus of 35 %, the Project could accommodate up to 322 additional units above the 922 Base Units for a total of 1,244 total units. This AHIP is intended to implement affordable housing requirements for the Uptown Newport project pursuant to the State Bonus Density Law, Title 19 Chapter 19.54 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( the "Inclusionary Code "), and the Density Bonus Code. 1I1, Affordable Housing Obligation Subdivision projects that result in a net increase of residential units have a requirement to provide affordable housing pursuant to the City's inclusionary housing requirements that are set forth in chapter 19.54 of the Municipal Code as well as the Density Bonus Code set forth in chapter 20.32 of the Municipal Code (combined, the "Affordability Requirements" or "Affordable Housing Requirements "). The Owner seeks to achieve the maximum 35% density bonus, and will meet the Affordable Housing Requirements by the construction of affordable housing as follows: • By providing a minimum of eleven percent (11 %) of the Base Units (102 units) for Very -Low Income households for rent, or • By providing a minimum of twenty percent (20 %) of the Base Units (185 units) for Low - Income households for rent, or • By providing a minimum of forty percent (40 %) of the Base Units (369 units) for Moderate- Income households for ownership, or • By providing a combination of the above In the event a combination of the above housing types is constructed, a Very-Low Income unit shall be deemed to be the equivalent of 3.6 Moderate Income units or 1.8 Low - Income units. A Low - Income unit shall be the equivalent of 2 Moderate - Income units. For example, if 30 Very -Low Income units are constructed, either 131 Low - Income or 261 Moderate Income units would be required to complete the affordability requirements. If 89 Low - income units are constructed, 191 Moderate - Income units are required. For this conversion the required number of units shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Uptown Newport AHIP Page 4 In the event that the Project utilizes a density bonus of less than 35 %, then the Affordability Requirements would be reduced pro -rata with the reduction of market rate units through an amendment to this AHIP. IV, Methods to meet Affordability Requirements The Owner shall meet its Affordable Housing Requirements by developing the affordable units on site. Affordable units may be dispersed throughout the Planned Community or clustered in one or more sections of the Planned Community. V, Definitions The City's Affordability Requirements and Affordable Housing Requirements set out certain definitions and descriptions to assist in the implementation of the requirements, many of which are indicated below. These definitions and descriptions will be utilized in the interpretation of the requirements under this AHIP: A. Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA). Section 20.32.100 of the Density Bonus Code requires that an applicant that seeks a density bonus shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement ('AHA") with the City. Section 19.54.020(A) of the Inclusionary Code states that the AHA shall provide legal restrictions by which the affordable units shall be restricted to ensure that the units remains affordable to very low -, low -, or moderate - income households, as applicable. With respect to rental units, rent restrictions shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. With respect to owner - occupied units, resale controls shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and /or other similar documents recorded against the applicable property. B. Affordable Housing Cost. Pursuant to State of California Health & Safety Code Section 50052.5, affordable housing costs for any owner - occupied for -sale affordable units shall be as follows. a. The affordable housing costs for very low- income households shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of fifty (50) percent of area median income for Orange County adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. b. For low- income households the affordable housing costs shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of seventy (70) percent of area median income for Orange County adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. For those low- income households with incomes above seventy (70) percent of area median income the maximum affordable housing cost may be increased to thirty (30) percent of the income of the household. c. For moderate - income households the affordable housing costs shall not be less than twenty -eight (28) percent of the gross income of the household nor exceed thirty -five (35) percent of one hundred ten (110) percent of Orange County area median income adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit. Furthermore, for those moderate - income households with incomes above one hundred ten (110) percent of area median income the affordable housing costs may be increased to thirty - five (35) percent of the gross income of the household. Uptown Newport AHIP Page 5 d. Pursuant to sections 19.54.020 (C) and (D) of the City's Municipal Code "Adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit" shall mean a household size based upon two (2) persons per bedroom except for efficiency units where the household size shall be one (1) person. C. Affordable Rental Price. — Municipal Code section 19.54.020(D) defines an affordable rental price as an annual rent that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the maximum income level for very low -, low -, and moderate - income households, as adjusted for household size. In determining the maximum household income for a given affordable unit, it shall be based upon each bedroom being occupied by two persons, except for efficiency units (one person). D. Affordable Unit. - Municipal Code section 19.54.020 (E) defines an Affordable Unit as an ownership or rental- housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to households with very low -, low -, and moderate - incomes as defined herein. E. Low - Income.- Municipal Code section 19.54.020 (G) defines low- income as an income between fifty (50) percent and eighty (80) percent of the Orange County median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ( °HCD"). Within this AHIP "low- income" and "lower- income" shall have the same meaning. F. Moderate - income. - Municipal Code section 19.54.020 (H) defines moderate - income as an income between eighty (80) percent and one hundred twenty (120) percent of the Orange County median Income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the HCD. G. Very low- income. - Municipal Code section 19.54.020 (1) defines very low - income to mean income fifty (50) percent or less of the Orange County median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the HCD. H. Annual Adjustments. - Orange County Area Median Incomes utilized for setting the Affordable Housing Price, Affordable Housing Costs, and Affordable Rental Price shall be those published annually by HCD. Permissible Residency. - Whenever an occupancy restriction identifies a particular household category for occupancy, households with less income may also occupy that unit. So, for example, if a unit has a Moderate - Income restriction, Low - Income and Very-Low Income households may occupy that unit. Similarly, if a unit has a Low - Income restriction, Very Low - Income households may occupy that unit. J. Rental Income Limits Established. - The permissible rental rates for the affordable units shall not exceed the Affordable Rental Price described earlier in this AHIP. K. Affordable Housing Costs Established. - The permissible Affordable Housing Costs for the affordable units shall not exceed the Affordable Housing Costs described earlier in this AHIP. Uptown Newport AHIP Page 6 L. Term of Affordability Restrictions. a. The affordable rental units provided through the implementation of this AHIP shall be legally restricted to occupancy by, and affordable to, households meeting the income requirements designated herein for a minimum duration of thirty (30) years from the date of the certificate of occupancy for the affordable units. b. Any affordable owner - occupied units provided through the implementation of this AHIP will be restricted to occupancy by, and affordable to, moderate income households. The term of the restrictions will run until the earlier of (i) the termination of the affordability restrictions in accordance with the equity sharing provisions described in section c() below or (ii) thirty (30) years from the date of the initial Certificate of Occupancy. c. The affordability restrictions will be documented by the recording of the following documents against the affected units: In the case of owner - occupied for -sale units a Regulatory Agreement, Restrictive Covenant, or equivalent will be recorded against each affordable unit upon the sale to the initial occupant. The new qualified owner will also sign a promissory note with the City as beneficiary in the amount of the City's initial subsidy, which shall be as defined in section 20.32.090 B 2 (a) of the Density Bonus Code. The promissory note will be secured by a trust deed, which will be recorded against the unit and subordinated to conventional financing secured by the buyer, which will be in first position on title. The affordable units shall be subject to the City's equity sharing requirements which are described in section 20.32.090 B of the City's Density Bonus Code. ii. In the case where the restricted units are rental units, a Regulatory Agreement or equivalent will be recorded against the apartment project assuring the continued affordability of the restricted units for a minimum of 30 years. The Regulatory Agreement will be subordinate to any conventional mortgage or bond financing which has a first trust deed position against the apartment project. M. Units Applicable against RHNA Requirements. - The City and Owner agree that any affordable units produced through the implementation of this AHIP may be used by the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessments ( "RHNA ") specified by the Southern California Association of Governments ( °SCAG" ). Uptown Newport AHIP Page 7 N. Orange County Area Median Income. - Annually HCD publishes area median incomes ( "AMP') for each county in California. HCD revised and updated its 2012 income limits on February 1, 2012. The 2012 income limits for Orange County are as follows: W M Orange County Median Income - 2092 Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 Income Category: Extremely Low Income $20,250 $23,150 $26,050 $28,900 $31,250 Very Low Income $33,750 $38,550 $43,350 $48,150 $52,050 Lower Income $53,950 $61,650 $69,350 $77,050 $83,250 Median Income $59,700 $68,250 $76,750 $85,300 $92,100 Moderate Income $71,650 $81,900 $92,100 $102,350 $110,550 Source: Department of Housing & Community Development, revised 2/1/92 Assurance of the Development ofAffordable Housing. If the Owner has not commenced the development of affordable units in accordance with the phasing plan described in section VII below then the City may withhold Certificates of Occupancy for the market rate units under construction until the Owner or successor in interest has commenced or completed the development of the affordable units. 2. For purposes of this section "commence the development' shall mean (i) commence or complete the construction of the affordable units, or (ii) issuance of building permits for or completion of the construction of the affordable units. Phasing of the Affordable Housing Production. Affordable housing shall be constructed in each of the two proposed phases of development. Based upon the current phasing plan where 680 units are proposed for Phase 1 (55% of the project) and 544 units are proposed for Phase 2 (45% of the project), the minimum number of affordable units to be constructed in Phase 1 shall be 55% and shall not exceed 60% of the total affordable housing obligation for the Uptown Newport project. The remaining affordable housing obligation shall be constructed in Phase 2. 2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for fifty percent (50 %) of the market rate units planned within each Phase, the Owner shall commence construction or complete the construction of a minimum of fifty percent (50 %) of the affordable units required to be constructed within each Phase. Uptown Newport AHIP Page 8 3. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for ninety percent (90 %) of the market -rate units within each Phase, the Owner shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for all affordable units required to be constructed within each Phase. VIII. Affordable Housing Agreement. - An AHA referencing the terms of this AHIP shall be executed and recorded between the City and Owner prior to recordation of the Final Map for the project. IX. Amendments of the AHIP. - This AHIP may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties which will require City Council approval pursuant to section 19.54.060 of the Municipal Code. X. Successors in Interest. - The obligations and benefits applying to the Owner under this AHIP shall also apply to any successors in interest to the Owner. XI. (tight to Assign. - Owner shall have the right to assign the AHA or this AHIP, including all benefits, covenants, duties, and obligations contained herein, upon the City's prior approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Owner shall notify the City in writing of the assignment at least thirty (30) days prior to completion of the assignment. Owner's notice of assignment to the City shall include the name of, and contact information for the assignee. Upon completion of the assignment, the assignee shall assume and perform all duties and obligations set forth in the AHA and this AHIP, excepting only those duties and obligations expressly retained by Owner, if any, as part of the assignment. Uptown Newport AHIP Page 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } 1, Leilani 1. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2013 -24 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 26th day of February, 2013, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Gardner, Hill, Selich, Henn, Daigle, Mayor Curry Nays: None Recused: Petros IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 27th day of February, 2013. 44k- °"C)- P)�� City Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal)