HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - NB-1 - Attachment 4 - 5/20/2014ATTACHMENT
+ J
LINSCOTT
LAW 8r
GREEN$PAN
engineers
April 4, 2014
Mr. Donald D. Lamm
Diamond Star Associates, Inc.
4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 310
Newport Beach, California 92660
LLG Reference: 2.13.3478.1
Subject: Trip Generation Assessment for the
Costa Mesa Motor Inn Project at 2277 Harbor Boulevard
Costa Mesa, California
Dear Mr. Lamm:
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Trip Generation
Assessment for the proposed Costa Mesa Motor Inn residential project located at 2277
Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa. The 176,674-square foot (SF) project site
(4.05 acres) is proposed to be developed with 236 apartment units. This letter
summarizes the trip generation forecast for the proposed project, and compares the
project's tripmaking potential against the existing use (236-room motel), and against the
current General Plan Buildout designation for the site under two possible scenarios: (1)
presumed as retail with 53,002 SF GLA, and (2) presumed as office with 53,002 SF
GFA.
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as a one-way vehicular
movement, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations
and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in Trip Generation,
(9th Edition), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
[Washington, D.C., 2012].
Engineers & Planners
Traffic
Transportation
Parking
Unsco% Caw &
Greenspan, Engineers
2 Executive Circle
Su ire 250
Irvine, CA 92614
949.8xs 6M r
949.M6173 F
www.11gen gin eers. c ont
Pasadena
I rvine
San Diego
Woodland Hills
Table I presents the results of the trip generation assessment. The traffic forecast for
the proposed project was calculated by applying ITE's Apartment trip generation
factors to the 236 dwelling units. As Table I indicates, the project is expected to
generate 1,569 daily trips on a typical weekday, 121 AM peak hour trips, and 146 PM
peals hour trips.
Philip M. Linscott. PE 11924-20MI
Jack M. Greenspan, PEIRai,
The ITE trip rates for Motels were applied to the existing 236-room motel (assuming W"tiamkIaw,PElReu
all rooms are occupied). Comparing the existing trips against the project's ""W.Wilkinson, PE
tripmaking potential indicates that the project would result in a reduction of 581 daily John P. Keaong, PE
trips and 30 AM peak hour trips, and a nominal increase of 9 PM peak hour trips. John A. '
avid S. , PE
ShSherer
The trip increment during the PM peak hour is insignificant, especially when Clare M. oaenndrm. PE
M.Jaeger, PE
distributed over the entire 60-minute period; therefore, on that basis, the proposed RFchard E. Barretto, PE
Keil0. Maherry, PE
An LU MB Company Fgmded'WO
— { J ,
Mr. Donald D. Lamm
April 4, 2014
Page 2
project is not expected to significantly impact any intersections or roadways in the
area.
The ITE trip rates for Shopping Centers were applied to estimate the trips generated
by the current General Plan designation for the project site under Scenario 1, with the
site developed as retail, corresponding to 53,002 SF GLA.
Under Scenario 1, comparing General Plan Buildout trips against project -generated
traffic indicates that the project would generate fewer trips than what has been
designated for the site in the General Plan, by 694 daily trips and 50 PM peak hour
trips; however, the project would result in an increase of 70 PM peak hour trips that
exceed the General Plan's trip budgets for the site. This increment also exceeds the
City's 50-peak hour trip threshold for requiring detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA).
In order for the project to not exceed the City's TIA criteria, the number of units must
be reduced to 197 DU.
The ITE trip rates for General Office were applied to estimate the trips generated by
the current General Plan designation for the project site under Scenario 2, with the
site developed as office, corresponding to 53,002 SF GFA.
Under Scenario 2, a comparison between General Plan Buildout trips against project -
generated traffic indicates that the project would result in an increase of 984 daily
trips, 38 AM peak hour trips, and 67 PM peak hour trips, which exceed the General
Plan's trip budgets for the site. The increment of 67 PM peak hour trips also exceeds
the City's 50-peak hour trip threshold for requiring detailed traffic impact analysis.
In order for the project to not exceed the City's TIA criteria, the number of units must
be reduced to 208 DU.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this letter. Should you have any questions,
please call me at 949.825.6175.
Sincerely,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
Attachment
TABLE 1
PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES AND FORECAST
2277 Harbor Boulevard (Costa Mesa Motor Inn), Costa Mesa
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
.Project Descri tion
2-Way
Enter
Exit
Total
Enter
Exit
Total
Trip Generation Factors 1 :
■ ITE 220: Apartment (FF./DU)
6.65
0.10
0.41
0.51
0.40
0.22
0.62
■ ITE 320: Motel (TElOccupied Rooms)
9.11
0.23
0.41
0.64
0.31
0.27
0.58
■ ITE 820: Shopping Center (TE11,000 SF GL.A)
42.70
0.60
0.36
0.96
1.78
I.93
3.71
■ ITE 710: General Office (TE/1,000 SF GFA)
11.03
1.37
0.19
1.56
0.25
1.24
1.49
Proposed Project:
• Apartments (236 DU)
1,569
24
97
121
94
52
146
stirs Use.
■ Motel (236 rooms)
2,150
54
97
151
73
64
137
Proposed Project Minus -baisting Use:
0
21
(1 2)
9
General Plan Buildout Scenarl 1:
■ Retail (53,002 SF GI.A assumed)
2,263
32
19
51
94
102
196
Proposed Project Minus (iPB Scenario I:
(694)
(8}
78
70
0
■ No. of Apartments Allowable = 197 DU
1,310
20
81
101
79
43
122
to not exceed Cites 50-peak hour trip
(953)
(12)
62
S0
threshold for requiring 11A
General Playa Buddout Scenario 2:
■ General Office (53,002 SF GFA assumed)
585
73
10
83
13
66
79
Proposed Project Minus GPB Scenario 2:
984
87
38
81
67
■ No. of Apartments Allowable = 208 Dl;
1,383
21
85
106
83
46
129
to not exceed CiWs 50-peak hour trip
798
(5 3)
75
23
70
50
threshold for requiring TIA
Notes:
[ll Sou e: Trip Geimr den, 91k Fdlrim. Insaime. ofTraWialim FMhi rs rJTF). WashipWn:m. D. C. (20)2). Average rates used
MDU - Trip ends per Dwelling Unii
DU — Dwelling Unit
- I'l