Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCirculation_Element_1974C1 RCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 10J 1974, ADOPTED ~Y THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 11, 1974, Amended by: Gene ra 1 P hn Amendment No. 4. Re~olu1;ion No. 8314; adppted by the City Council on J u1y 22. 1974. GeneNl Pl an I)mendment No. 5, Resolution No. 8315; adopted by the City Counc; 1 on July 22. 1974. General Pl,n Amendment No.9. Re.olution No. 8398; adopted bY the City Council on December 9. 1974. General P 1 al') Amendment No. 23 (portion). Resolution No. 8448; adopted by the Ci ty Counc; 1 on March 10. 1975. General Plan Amendment No. 23 (portion) , Resolution No. 8458; adl)pted by the City Council on March 24. 1975. I RESOLUTION NO. 8206 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a phase of the City's General Plan Program has involved the preparation .of a Circulation Element; and WHEREAS, said Circulation Element sets forth objectives and supporting policies which will serve asa guide for the future planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, has held a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element as a part of the City's General Plan and has adopted and has recommended that the City Councjl adopt said element; and. WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of the Cir~ulation Element as a part of the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City Of .Newport ~each does hereby adopt the Circulation Element described above, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED th i s 11th day of Ma rch , 1974. 5 > Mayor C~RTIFIE AS A TRUe AND ..... .... tz(t1-.tL Ja<~,dcc:"", c y CU2"K OF rIlE CirY OF N~W RRECT COpy ATTEST: ~1A T BEACH City Clerk 1'- RESOLUTION NO. ill A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a phase of the City's General Plan Program has involved the p~eparation of the Circulation Element; and WHEREAS, said Circulation Element sets forth objectives and supporting policies Which will serVe as a guide for the future planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Circula- tion Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planni~g Commission does hereby adopt and recommend to the City Council the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan described above, a copy of which is on file in the Newport Beach Community Development Department. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the Ci ty of Newport Beach hel d on the ) Oth day of Janua~ , 1974. I , \ AYES; fuJJUL. Beckl~HFewinkel , Heather. Parker, Rosener, Seel NOES: None ABS ENT: JiQ..n.g '" .IJ I,' ( .~) .'_ cWrman'bmanl~i\J Il~· -,~~ :~~~JS."~~";), ) Se~retary '--' (' TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction--------------------------------------------------Page Purpose and Scope---------------------------------------------Page 3 Circulation Element -Proposals-------------------------------Page 4 Basic Concept-----------------------------------------------Page 4 Master Plan of Streets and Highways-------------------------Page 4 Specific Proposals--------------------------------------------Page 6 Corona del Mar Freeway -Bonita/Coyote Canyon Alignment---------------------------------------------------Page 6 Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard-------------------------------------------Page 6 Interchange at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway----------Page 7 Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard---------Page 7 Coast Highway from Upper Bay Bridge to Dover Drive----------Page 7 Coast Highway between Jamboree Road and the Upper Bay Bridge--------------------------------------------------Page 8 Coast Highway from MacArthur to Jamboree Road---------------Page 8 Coast Highway from MacArthur through Corona del Mar---------PaQe 8 Superior Avenue---------------------------------------------Page 9 15th Street from Superior Avenue Westerly-------------------Page 9 Dover Drive from Westcliff to Coast Highway-----------------Page 10 Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Corona del Mar Freeway-----------------------------------------------------Page 10 Old MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road------------------------------------------Page 10 Old MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison Avenue---------------------------------------------Page 11 San Joaquin Hi lIs Road from "01 d" MacArthur to Spy Glass Hills Road--------------------------------------------Page 11 Bison Avenue between Jamboree and MacArthur-----------------Page 11 Ford Road from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard---------Page 11 University Drive from Tustin Avenue to Corona del Mar Freeway------------------------------------------------------Page 12 Avocado Avenue from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road--------------------------------------------------------Page 12 New MacArthur from San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road------Page 12 Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to 30th Street---------Page 12 Balboa Boulevard from 33rd Street to 44th Street------------Page 12 Implementation------------------------------------------------Page 14 Project Priorities------------------------------------------Page 14 Financing Resources-----------------------------------------Page 15 Financially Attainable Program------------------------------Page 16 Land Use Regulations----------------------------------------Page 21 Advanced Right-of-Way Purchase----------------"-------------Page 22 Access Control--------------------------------"-------------Page 23 INTRODUCTION The Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan is based upon the Newport Beach Traffic Study prepared by the Consultant Firm of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. Alan M. Voorhees & Associates was authorized to begin work on a three-phased study for the development of a transportation plan for the City of Newport Beach in October, 1971. Assisting in this study were Behavior Science Corporation of Los Angeles, and Toups Engineering, Inc., of Santa Ana. Phase I defined the magnitude and location of present and future problems. Phase II investigated alternative transportation plans which could provide for future travel demands, receive public acceptance, and create minimal environmental disturbance. The Phase III Report covers the final stages of the study and recommends an implementation program of specific improvement projects. Alternative plans were evaluated, and a final plan was recommended by the Consultant. The Consultant's report is the basic source document for the Circulation Element and should be referred to for the various alternati ves that were considered in developing this report. A Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee was authorized by the City Council in October, 1970 for the purpose of meeting with the Consultant throughout each phase of the study to provide citizen input. The Committee held approximately 38 evening meetings during the three study phases, many of these meetings lasted four hours or more. \ - 1 - Throughout the study the Citizens Advisory Committee strongly presented the citizens point of view in their considerations and deliberations, while the Consultant attempted to present the be s t re ali s tic t e c h n i cal sol uti 0 n s tot h e City 'st ran s po r tat ion problems. The final recommendations contained within the Phase III report represent the best technical solutions that the Consultant felt would receive the necessary public support for implementation. -2- PURPOSE AND SCOPE It is intended that this Element satisfy the State requirement that local General Plans cohtain a "circulation element". Section 65302 of the Government Code states in part, that local General Plans shall include: "A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals and facilities, all cor- related with the land use element of the plan. II In addition the State of California Council on Intergovernmental Relations has adopted the following guidelines for the scope and nature of the Circulation Element: "A. Identification and analysis of circulation needs and issues. B. A statement of goals, objectives and policies based on the total ci rcul ati on needs of the communi ty, including priorities among modes and routes and distinguishing among short, middle and long-term periods of implementation. C. A diagram, map or other graphic representation showing the proposed circulation system. D. A descri ption of the proposed ci rcul ation systems and the interrelationships among system parts. E. Standards and criteria for the location, design, operation and 1 evel s of servi ce of ci rcul ati on facilities. . F. A guide to the implementation of the circulation system." Proposals for the Provision of Bikelolays within the CHy of Newport Beach are contained in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. -3- Cl RCULATION ELEMENT -PROPOSALS BASIC CONCEPT The area's cultural activities, financial activities, commercial act i vi tie s, i n d u s t ria 1 act i vi tie s, c i vic act i vi tie s, and r e c re a- tional activities, all place their demands upon a transportation system which should bring people to activity centers, allow them to circulate among activities and carry them back to their point of origin. In that regard, it would appear to be clear that as much as an urban area requires transportation facilities which provide easy access and circulation for persons within, it is just as important that people and vehicles without interest, origin, or destination iri the area be kept out. The key to the solution of the traffic problems in Newport Beach is the development of a major bypass route around the City, so that through ttaffic does not use the Coast Highway traffic corridor. This proposal is consistent with the policies contained within the General Plan Policy Report adopted by the City Council on March 21, 1972. A corollary policy to the development of a major bypass route is development of a series of major arterials in a north-south direction for people and vehicles with a specific destination within Newport Beach. MASTER PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Attached is a map entitled "Newport Beach Circulation Element - Master Plan of Highways". It is intended that the Master Plan of Highways satisfy the State requirement that the Circulation Element contain a diagram or map. The major proposals described -4- within the Element are illustrated on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The road classifications are the same as used by Orange County for the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. These can be summarized as follows: Road C1 ass i fi- cation Freeway Major Primary Secondary Right of Way, Feet Variable Variable Variable 120 100 80 Wi dth Curb to Curb, Feet Variable Variable Variable 102 84 64 *(ADT) Average Daily Traffic No. of Lanes 4 6 8 6 4 6 4 Median Wi dth, Feet Variable Variable Variable 14-1 8 16-20 0-4 o Approxi mate Capaci ty, ADT* 55,000 100,000 135,000 40,000 25,000 35,000 14,000 The City of Newport Beach participates in the Orange County Arterial Highway Financing Program, in which the County assumes up to 50% of the cost of major roads shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. To participate in this program, each city has to have a Master Plan of Highways which is mutually satisfactory and in conformance wi th the plans of the County and all adjacent cities. The proposed relocation of Pacific Coast Highway and the Corona del Mar Freeway, and the extension of 17th Street have potenti al effects on ci ti es adjacent to the Ci ty of Newport Beach, and, therefore, have been classified as routes that require further coordination. !:,~wevE~J:L-U_ is intended that the alignments shown on the Master Plan of Highways for _each of these routes represent -5- Although the Newport Beach Circulation Element is limited to the boundaries of the City, coordination efforts with adjacent an~ surrounding jurisdictions must at some point be accomplished. The absence of coordination in the study was not an oversight. The City desired to proceed with no constraints in the development of a plan, recognizing that differences in the presently-adopted Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways would have to be resolved. SPECIEIC PROPOSALS l. CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY -BONITA/COYOTE CANYON ALIGNMENT This project provides for the construction and continuation of the Corona del Mar Freeway downcoast through Bonita/Coyote Canyon. The present State-adopted route is in the same alignment as "old" MacArthur Boulevard and, therefore, this proposal is shown on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a route that requires further coordination. The importance of constructing the Corona del Mar Freeway on the Bonita/Coyote Canyon alignment and continuing downcoast cannot be overstressed. This particular alignment provides an attractive alternate route which will divert an estimated 15,000 vehicles per day away from the Coast Highway corridor. 2. COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN THE SANTA ANA RIVER AND NEWPORT BOULEVARD This project provides for a new Coast Highway alignment between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard. The new route swings inland around Newport Shores and interchanges with a route which connects to the Newport Freeway alignment. The existing Coast Highway becomes a cul-de-sac on both sides of the Santa Ana River, -6- and reverts to a local access street. Provisions will have to be made for the extension of Balboa Boulevard. The new alignment is planned in such a way to accommodate a future marina with ocean access. The roadway wi 11 generally provi de good traffi c servi ce, and provide a good east-west alternative to the existing Coast Highway. Separate facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians and future transit will be provided. The "barrier" effect of the present Coast Hi ghWBY parall el i ng the beach wi 11 be el imi nated. Coast Highway is a part of the State Highway System and, therefore, this proposal is shown on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a route that requires further coordination. 3. INTERCHANGE AT NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND COAST HIGHWAY This project provides for the construction of a new interchange on Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard. No specific geometrics are suggested other than a single structure for the interchange. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities will be included in thi s project. 4. COAST HIGHWAY FROM DOVER DRIVE TO NEWPORT BOULEVARD It is proposed that. this segment of Coast Highway be widened to a major road (six travel lanes and a center median) with a right- of-way width of 112 feet. The additional 12 feet of width will be added to the northerly side of Coast Highway. 5. COAST HIGHWAY FROM UPPER BAY BRIDGE TO DOVER DRIVE This project includes the construction of a bridge on Coast Highway across the Bay to replace the existing bridge which is not only de fie i en tin cap a city, but i s be com i n 9 s t r u c t u r Q 1 1 y de fie i en t . -7- A bridge of relatively low profile would permit most trailerable vessels to pass under. Provisions are planned for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit. The plan includes widening of Dover Drive to provide two right turning lanes from Coast Highway to Dover Drive. The bridge would essentially be eight lanes, six lanes of which would provide for relatively free flow of traf~ic, the additional width being for the other facilities. No traffic deficiency is projected with this design. These improvements would eliminate what is considered to be the most heavily-congested section in the City of Newport Beach .. 6. COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN JAMBOREE ROAD AND THE UPPER BAY BRIDGE This improvement provides for widening Coast Highway to six lanes from Jamboree Road to the proposed Upper Bay Bridge replacement. This segment of Coast Highway will have signalized intersections at Jamboree Road, Promontory Point and Baysi de Dri ve. Future capacity deficiencies can be expected to occur at these inter- sections. It is important that this project be implemented in conjunction with the improvements to the new Upper Bay Bridge. 7. COAST HIGHWAY FROM MACARTHUR TO JAMBOREE ROAD This project is the widening of Coast Highway to six lanes from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities will be included in this project. In addition, a one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road is to be given further study. 8. COAST HIGHWAY FROM MACARTHUR THROUGH CORONA DEL MAR This segment of Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard through Corona del Mar includes proposals for additional street improvements, -8- improved signalization an~additional off-street parking. The Fifth Avenue corridor was conSidered and rejected as an alternative because of lack of community support and other considerations. In addition, it will be the POlicy of the City of Newport Beach to develop additional off·street commer!ia! parking. Traffic defi.c;iencies on this section will be substantially reduced wi th the construction 9f thl! major road network to the north and east, particularly the Corona del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin Hills Road, and Connecting north-south roads such as Canyon Crest Drive, 9. SUPERIOR AVENU~ This project is e$sentially widening SUPerior Avenue on the ,xilting alignment to foUr lanes divided. A sh.ort new section would be constructed on the southerly end to connact as a tee intersection with Coast Highway. With Coast Highway relocated northerly of its pres.ent alignment, the increased elevation of Coast Highway would enable good alignmentanq grade to be maintained on Superior Avenue, No traffic capacity deficiencies are projected. 10, 15TH STREET FROMSUPERIQR AVENUE WESTERLY This is a partially new road whiCh is on the present Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It involves the widening of existing 15th Street to four 1 ilnes undivJjll to a point just westerly of Monrovia Avenue, and continuing on with new constr~ction at four lanes divided, crossing and intersecting with the proposed relocated Coast Highway, then turning souther!yand connecting as a tee intersection with exl,ting Coast Highway. This roadway provides a good alternate for the south part of Superior Avenue. 11. DOVER DRIVE FROM WESTCLIFF TO COAST HIGHWAY This project provides for the .rdenind of Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive to Coasi Highway. This project on the existing al ignment will improve this section 'to full major roadway status and complement the improvements ~eing made at Dover Drivean~ Coast Highway. 12. JAMBOREE ROAD FROM COAST HIGHWAY TO CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY This project is the widening of Jamboree Road to six lanes from Coast Hi ghway to the Corona del Mar Freeway. All the right-Of-way for widening this route is available. Although Jamboree Road is a very important route now, its i mp'ortance wi 11 increase as Upper Bay develops. No capacity deficiency is projected for Jamboree Road, providing traffic on'MacArthur and Jamboree splits evenly; 13. OLD MACARTHUR BOULEVARD FROM COAST HIGHWAY TO SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD This section of State Route 73, (Old ~acArthur Boulevard) from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road is very important. MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, between Coast Highway aod San Joaquin Hills Road, will be developed as.a one-way couplet with " a total of six travel lanes, three in each direction. In the interim period before a good alternate route is developed down- coast, such as the Corona del Mar Fre~~ay or some facility to take its place, MacArthur will continue to carry much of the through traffic. This traffic either comes from or goes to downcoast via Coast Highway. Old MacArthur Boulevard is the state-adopted route for the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway and, therefore, thi s proposal is shown on the Mas ter Pl an of Streets and Hi ghways -10- as a route that requires further consideration. 14. OLD MACARTHUR.BOUL~VARD FROM SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD TO BISON AVENUE This is a contin~ation of the widening of Route 73 to six lanes from San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison Avenue. Since there is no access to Chis section of Route 73, and it is assumed there wiTl be no ~Cce5S in the future, traffic i~ now and will be free flowing, No capacity deficiencies are projected for these sections unless a good alternate route downcoast, such as the Corona del Mar Freeway, fails to develop. Old MacArthur Boulevard is the state- adopted route for the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway and, therefore, this proposal is shown on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a route that requires further consideration. 15. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD FROM "OLD" MACARTHUR TO SPY GLASS HILLS ROAD This project is the widening of San Joaquin Hills Road from State Route 73 to Spy Glass Hills Road to a full six-lane major highway. All the n~cessary right-of-way is available. Further extension to the ~ast will depend on how and when the area develops. 16. BISON AVENUE BETWEEN JAMBOREE AND MACARTHUR Thi$ is a short section of Bison Avenue being developed as a primary ra,d connector batween tWo major roads, Jamboree and Mac- Arthur. This route will provide an important circulation el.ment in the system ~hen the Corona del Mar Freeway is constructed. 17. FORO ROAD FROM JAMBOR~E ROAD TO MACARTHUR BOULEVARD This project involves th. upgrading of Ford Road to primary status between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. It is important enough to be a top-priority project. -11- 18. UNIVERSITY DRIVE FROM TUSTIN AVENUt TO CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY This project is the construction Of University Drive from Tustin Avenue to the Corona del Mar Freeway to link with the section of University Drive east of State Route 73 in the City of Irvine. A bridge must be constructed across the flood control channel. This new roadway is very important in the system since it will provide the major road link around the end of Upper Bay. Because of its importance, some capacity deficiency could develop, particularly if construction on th~ Corqna del Mar Freeway is substantially delayed. 19. AVOCADO AVENUE FROM COAST HIGHWAY TO SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD. Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, will be developed as a one-way couplet, as discussed under Proposal No. 13. 20. NEW MACARTHUR FROM SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD TO FORD ROAD This is a continuation of Avocado along New MacArthur from San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road. It involves some new road construction and some widening. 21. NEWPORT BOULEVARD FROM COAST HIGHWAY TO 30TH STREET This is a widening project on Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to 30th Street. A complete six-lane divided roadway would be provided with a new bridge across the channel which would replace the existing bridge. It is expected that some capacity deficiency can still be expected. However, the improvements will significantly help the traffic flow. 22. BALBOA BOULEVARD FROM 33RD STREET TO 44TH STREET This project is the widening of Balboa Boulevard to primary status from 33rd Street to 44th Street. Tra1fic circulation will be -1 2- substantially improved and no capacity deficiency is projected. Any future Widening must be accomplished without a net reduction in existing City park facilities in the general area. -1 3- I MPLEMENTA TI ON Final locations of new routes require detailed study of real property. soil conditions, utilities. and intimate correlation with land use plans. Routes shown in this report which are not on existing alignments show general rather than exact location Final locations will be worked out only when it is feasible to acquire property or to begin construction. In short. the plan describes a full system or network as the base from which to work towards more detailed and exact locations. In determining specific routes. it is of prime importance to remember that no matter how well a program is developed. little will be accomplished if public acceptance and support is not received. It is not usual1.y very difficult to determine those improvements which will solve pure traffic problems and provide a good level of service. Often. however. the purely technical solutiol does not receive public support. and in some instances. it may not be possible to truly assess what may be acceptable at the time of implementation. The immediate or shorter range projects very often receive the most attention. PROJECT PRIORITIES Of immediate importance in implementing this plan are the questions of what to build first and what to build next. While there may be some agreement for the need of a large and accelerated program, much of the construction is far in the future and may seem relatively unimportant in contrast to the real problem of what to build first or next. The problem of priorities is very important in directing -14- the engineering and constr~ction program towards efficient plan implementation. A variety of factors should be considered in assigning construction priorities. Available and committed financing is always a key factor. Availability of engineering studies, land use development programs, traffic needs, and system continuity must all be considered. In view of traffic needs, public interest, and investigative work alreadY done, projects of most immediate need were not too difficult to classify. The further one tries to look into the future, the more difficult it becomes to assign meaningful priorities. Projects were classified into categories A, B, C and 0 and are arranged in that way in Table 4. Classification A is the highest priority or most immediate concern, while classification 0 represents those projects not likely necessary for many years. No attempt has been made to further refine the priorities since actual order of construction will be affected by several factors such as available funds, timing of land development, coordination between projects, and ability of other entities such as the State to provide improvements. Therefore, while those projects classified A may be the most important, it may not be possible or practical to attain all of them ahead of some projects in classification B. EI~ANCING RESQURCES The final question in evaluating the proposed transportation plan is financing -Can the capital investment required to obtain the economic and level of servic~ improvements be afforded? There are no analytical techniques which can answer this question. It is a matter of policy which depends on how the community wishes ·1 5- to allocate total resources among many publi~ services. The approach taken here is one of reviewing present and probable future allocations and determining whether this will result in sufficient funds to support the implementation program. The City derives its revenues for street right-of~way purchase. design and construction from gas tax apportionment, County funds and federal funds. The total of these revenues will average approximately $10.30 per capita in 1974 and will provide approxi- mately $620,000. In 1990 with population estimated at 100,000, the annual revenue wi 11 be $1,030,000 based on these same apportionments. The estimated annual available revenues from 1974 to 1990 for rights-of-way. design and construction are shown on Table 1. For the 17-year period from 1974 to 1990, the average annual revenue is about $770.000. FINANCIALLY ATTAINABLE PROGRAM It would be quite coincidental if the available revenue for street construction matched the needs. Historically there have seldom been areas where the needed program could be attained when desired. Sufficient funding is usually not available and the program lags. The main alternatives in such cases are to reduce the size of the program, obtain additional revenues, or a combination of these two things. If the decision is to continue road constructio at the present level of funding, then priorities ~Bcome even more important, and the program must stretch out beyond the usually accepted 20-year planning span. It is a possibility, of course. that not all of the projects proposed her~in will be needed in 20 years. -16- TABLE 1 EST! MATED CITY REVENUES FOR RI GHTS OF \~AY) DESIGN) AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED Cr TY GAS TAX REVENUES By YEAR) $LOOO's" 1974 $ 620 1975 640 1976 6 70 1977 700 1978 720 1979 750 1980 770 198'j 800 1982 830 1983 850 . 1984 880 1985 900 1986 930 1987 950 1988 980 1989 1 ,000 1990 1 ,030 Total: $13,120 Average for 17 Years = $770,000 *Based on population increasing from 60,000 to 100,000 and present level of funding which includes: City Gas Tax Funds $ 5.00 per capita Co un ty A. H. F. P. Funds 3.00 per capita Co un ty Bridge Funds 0.30 per capi ta F. A. U. Funds 2.00 per ca pita Total: $1 0.30 - 1 7- I ~ co I TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF RIGHTS OF HAY, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DIVISION OF COSTS, $l,OOO's Priority Cl ass i fi cati on Newport Beach m S ta te Other Enti ti es A $ 4,830 $ 7,990 $ 2,510 B 6,460 15,430 3,130 C 4,140 1 ,340 1 ,840 D 1 ,720 250 To ta 1 s $ 17,150 $ 24,760 $ 7,730 (1) Assumes 20% City participation in two State projects on Coast Highway: interchange, and Newport Boulevard to Santa Ana River. TABLE 3 ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES NEEDED) $l,OOO's Length of Program, Years 20 25 30 Newport Beach $ 857.5 686 571 .7 State $1,238 990.4 825.3 Other Entities $ 386.5 309.2 257.7 Totals $ 15,330 25,020 7,320 ...l..970 $ 49,640 Dover Dri ve Totals $2,482 1,985.6 1,654.6 Table 2 is a summary of estimated costs by priority classification and anticipated funding responsibility. Since it is not known to what extent the City may participate in projects involving State highways, an estimate of 20% of costs to the City was made for those projects where there may likely be City participation. Table 2 shows that the total costs for priority classifications A through D a~e $17,150,000 for Newport Beach, $24,760,000 for the State and $7,730,000 for other entities such as the County, other cities and private developers, for a total of $49,640,000. From Table we have seen that the estimated average annual City revenue available for rights-of-way, design and construction is about $770,000 based on a l7-year projection. This is far ~hort of being able to finance a 20-year implementation plan. Table 3 shows an average annual expenditure of $857,500 is necessary for a 20-year plan and a 30-year program will require $571,700. City revenues available for rights-of-way design and construction are based on per capita, with antiCipated population being 100,000 by 1990. Other sources of revenue could be considered to increase annual rE)VE)nues available for roads. However, there is a current trend towards diverting funds to other uses previously designated for road purposes. Rather than assume additional funds may be available for road purposes, it was assumed funding will remain constant on a per capita basis. This is certainly not an optimistic approach, but may prove to be the most realistic. Further, the present methods of funding are not geared to keep pace with inflationary construction costs and without some changes in these methods, the program could be substantially underfunded. -19- With an anticipated shortage of road funds, a way of approaching this matter is to consider only those projects which are in priority classification "A", and treat them as immediate and short range, say a total construction period of five years. The City portion of these projects is $4,830,000. Table 1 shows the esti~ated available revenues for the first five years (1974-1978) is $3,350,000, which means there is a City shortage of $1,480,000 for the fi rst five-year increment. Assuming no addi tional funds are available, the question to be answered is: "What can be eliminated from the five-year program to reduce expendi tures by $1,480 ,ODD?". A review of Priority A projects in Table 4 shows this is a most difficult question to answer. It was stated in Table 2 that 20% of Coast Highway-Dover Drive-Upper Bay Bridge costs were assigned to the City, which amounts to $1,300,000. If that amount was eliminated as City participation, or at least substantially reduced, the "A" projects would more closely fit into a five-year plan. So far nothing has been said about the ability of the State or other entities to finance the construction program. Other entities include other cities and private development, and the total costs are substantially less. Costs to private development usually come in right-of-way dedication and street construction adjacent to property being developed, which means the improvements precede or closely follow the needs. Other cities finance road improvements in much the same way as Newport Beach. An example of an "Other Cities" project is the construction of Del Mar Avenue from Newport Freeway to Tustin Avenue with an estimated cost of $2,330,000. -20- This project is in the City of Costa Mesa. Table 2 shows the estimated State costs for Priority A projects total $2,510,000. If we again assume a five-year program, this amounts to an average annual expenditure of $502,000. Whether the State can budget these amounts will d~pend on statewide funding levels and priorities. The replacement of the existing Upper Bay Bridge on Coast Highway and improvements at Coast Highway and Dover Drive should be of such importance to rank in the State's top priority projects. In summary, a!suming the entire road system will or should be built in 20 years, there are insufficient revenues under present City road funding practices to implement all projects within a 20-year span. From the current trends in road funding, additional funds cannot be expected. Some projects will have to be delayed and pri.ortties frequently updated to ensure that the most essential projects receive first consideration. LAND USE REGULATIONS The alternate transportation plans were developed to serve a specific existing and proposed land use. If actual land devalopment in the future departs significantly from the planned pattern, many of the projected benefits of the highway construction program may be lost. This is true both in terms of achieving overall higher levels of traffic service as well as coordinating land development and highway construction. It is not only a serious consideration within Newport Beach, but also in the adjacent communities which have a substantial effect on traffic -21- in Newport Beach. It must also be remembered that Newport Beach can have a substantial effect on traffic in surrounding jurisdictions. ADVANCED RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE Not too many years ago a fami 1 i ar saying was: "No one wants a highway on his property. just near it." Today the saying must be modified for those who don't want a highway anywhere near their property. or for that matter anywhere at all. However. property must have access and people must be provided good transportation facilities. Few people are enthusiastic about selling their property at someone else's recommendation even though being compensated for the property including financial assistance for residential or business relocation. These are natural and immediate reactions as people and businesses are required to move and readjust. These disruptions and shifts of people and businesses can be minimized through good planning. There are many ways in which the process can be improved. a most impdrtant one being advance designation and purchase of rights-of-way It is possible to work out final locations of routes and to plan future land developments around these commitments. Designation of future locations allows consolidation of local land planning and zoning. In fast growing areas land development and transportatior facilities can proceed together. Definite commitments enable the adjustment of people and land uses to a revised highway system. To make this process of advance designation of specific rights-of-way both fair and effective. the responsible agencies should have -22- funds for buying the required property in advance. Zoning and other legal means can control land development, but cannot reserve land for ultimate highway purchase thereby preventing building on the land. The most practical way of making advance transportation location designations is to purchase right-of-way as far in advance of construction as is consistent with the public interest. ACCESS CONTROL Transportation facilities in recent years have usually been built with either full control or no control of access. Often this all or none situation prevents agencies charged with trans- portation from responding in an effective manner. While full control of access around a freeway ;s important, the arterial street or highway is the backbone of the City in terms of land development and traffic service, and some access control should be considered. Urban arterials should primarily serve traffic and direct property access should be minimum. The arterials should provide direct access to the collector street system and large traffic generators. To plan and construct such facilities and ensure -their future usefulness, selective control of access is required. Without it, the area may be left with no arterial type traffic service and there may not be opportunity for providing future arterial facilities. -23- Key to Tab1 e (1) F = Freeway M = Major 8 lanes 6 1 anes 4 lanes 4 lanes >, ..., .~ '-o .~ '- 0.. I A N ..,. I A A A A A P = Primary S = Secondary Project Name and Limits Coast Highway Upper Bay Bridge & Dover Orive Interchange Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Upper Bay Bridge Coast Highway from MacArthur Blvd. through Corona del Mar Coast Highway from MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Road University Drive from Tustin Avenue to Corona del Ma r Freeway University Drive Bridge TABLE 4 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III COMPOSITE PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ! (2 ) N = New Construction W = Widen (3 ) Right of way costs include M = Modification B = Bridge ~ u~ 25% increase in estimated property costs for acquisition and costs of relocation assistance, Construction costs include 20% for contingencies. ~ ::l N '-~ VI ..., Costs, $1,000' s (3) Costs by Jurisdiction, $l,OOO's '"Ott) VlC rtSrt5 co 0..... 0.,- a::u u-~ M B M W P M M VI P N P B Right Construc- of Way ticn Total Newport Beach 1 ,230 5,270 6,500 1,300 (4) 870 280 1 ,1 50 40 40 1 ,1 00 500 1 ,600 2,870 1 ,500 4,370 2,070 500 500 r~o State Othe r 5,200 (4) 1 ,1 50 40 1 ,600 2 ,300 , >, ~ u~ ...., :::oN Costs by Jurisdiction, $l,OOO's .~ s..~ Cos ts , $l,OOO's . L3) '-'" ..... 0 "0 Vl Vl<= Project Name "'''' co Right Construc-Newport l-o~ o~ "-and Limits c:: u u...., of Way tion Total Beach State Other A San Joaquin Hills Road M W 300 300 300 from MacArthur Blvd. to Marguerite Avenue A Ford Road from MacArthur P W 420 420 210 210 Blvd. to Jamboree Road B Coast Highway from Dover P M 40 40 40 Drive to Newport Blvd. B Coast Highway -Newport M N 1 ,170 380 1 ,550 1 ,550 Boulevard Interchange I B Coast Highway from M N 4,260 10,140 14,400 2,880 ( 4 ) 11,520 ( 4 ) N Newport Blvd. to Santa <11 , Ana River B interchange at Newport M N 1 ,500 1 ,500 Freeway Ext. B Superior Avenue from P M & N 1 ,690 740 2,430 1 ,210 1 ,220 Coast Highway to 1ew- port Blvd. B Jamboree Ro ad from coast M W 340 340 1 70 170 Highway to San Joaquin Hi 11 s Ro ad B Jamboree Road from M W 190 190 100 90 San Joaqujn Hills Road to Ford Road B Jamboree Road from M W 190 190 90 100 Ford Road to Bison Avenue TABLE 4 (CONTINUED) ~ I >, ~ u~ +' ::0 N .~ <.~ s.. Vl +' 0 -0 Vl VlC ~ Project Name "'''' co Right Construc-Newport <. o~ o·~ 0.. and Limits 0:: u u+' of Way tion Tota 1 Beach S ta te ('I:~er B Jamboree Road from M W & B 1 ,000 1 ,000 800 200 Bison Avenue to Corona del Mar Freeway B Avocado-New MacArthur p N & W 700 600 1 ,300 300 1 ,000 from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road B New MacArthur from P N & W 290 410 700 350 350 San Joaquin Hi 11 s Road to Ford Road B Newport Boulevard from M W & B 1 , BOO 1 ,1 20 2,920 560 2,360 I Coast Highway to 30th N Street '" I C State Route 73 from Coast M W 130 280 410 410 Highway to San Joaquin Hill s Road C Sta te Rou te 73 from San M W 200 420 620 620 Joaquin Hills Ro a d to Ford Road C State RQute 73 from Ford M W 100 210 31 0 31 0 Road to Bi son Avenue C San Joaquin Hills Road M W 140 140 1 40 from Marguerite Ave. to Spy Glass Hill s Rd. C Bison Avenue from p N & W 250 1 50 1 00 MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road >, +-' <- 0 .~ <- "- C C D I N ..... I Project Name and L imi ts 15th Street from Superior Avenue to Coast Highway Balboa Boulevard from 33rd to 44th Balboa Boulevard ~ I u~ :::> '" <-~ V> -I-' -0 '" "'''' ",,,, cO o~ o·~ "" u U +' P N & W P W Costs, $l,OOO's ( 3 ) fo~ts_ b y_J_urjs d i c t ion, $1 ,0 0 O·~ Right Construc-Newport of Way tion To ta 1 Beach State Other 2,770 820 3,690 I ,850 1 ,840 1 ,500 500 2,000 2,000 SOD 500 250 250 NEWPORT BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN OF STREETS & HIGHWAYS cs:J MAJOR ROAD SIX LANE DMDED CSJ PRIMARY ROAD FOUR LANE DIVIDED [S] PRIMARY ROAD MODIFIED i ru INTERCHANGE [S] ADOPTED FREEWAY ROUTES = BRIDGE ~ SECONDARY ROAD FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED r:!J ROUTES THAT" REQUIRE COORDINATION .<> "4 C' , PIC ADOPTED BY QTY COUNCIL MARCH 11, 1974 -+-- scale--0 ... --in feet "+- Revised June 2, 1986 AMENDMENTS Listed below are the official amendments to the Circulation Element, as adopted by the City Council. These amendments are not reflected in the text or maps contained in this Element. neral Plan endment anber 4 5 Date of City Council Adoption July 22, 1974 July 22, 1974 1. Amendment Change the Master Plan of Streets and Highways' designation of Irvine Avenue between 15th Street and 16th street, from a primary road to a secondary road (4 lanes undivided, as currently exists) and, south of 15th Street, from a primary road to a "local street" (2 lanes, as currently exists). 2. Delete the proposed connection of Irvine Avenue to the Coast Highway from the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. 3. Delete specific proposal No. 12 on Page 10 from the Circulation Element Report. 4. De1e'te Irvine Avenue from the Priority "D" projects on Table 4 on Page 27 of the Circulation Element Report. 1. Change the Master Plan of Streets and Highways' designation of 15th street between Placentia Avenue and the proper- ty line between the Bond Publishing Company site and the Banning Property (just west of Monrovia Avenue) from a "Primary Road u to a "Secondary Road". 2. Revise the second sentence of Item 10, Page 9 of the Circulation Element report to read: Circulation Element Amendment. Sheet --Page 2 General Plan Amendment Number 5 (Continued) 9 23 (Portion) 23 (Portion) Date of City Council Adoption July 22, 1974 Dec. 9, 1974 March 10, 1975 March 24, 1975 Amendment "It involves the widening of existing 15th Street to four lanes undivided to a point just westerly of Monrovia Avenue, and continuing on with new construction at four lanes divided, crossing and intersecting .... n Delete the third sentence on Page 8 of the Circulation Element referring to the "inter- change" of Coast Highway with Dover Drive. 1. Revise the "Master Plan of Streets and Highways" (map) to designate Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile as a "Major Road -Six Lanes Divided.1I 2. Reword Proposal No. 4 on Page 7 of the Circulation Element to read as follows: 1. "It is proposed that this segment of Coast Highway be widened to. a major road (six travel lanes and a center median) with a right-of-way width of 112 feet. The Additional 12 feet of width will be added to the northerly side of Coast Highway." Revise the "Master Plan of Streets and Highways" (map) to designate Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard as a ilone-way coupletu • 2. Replace the second and third sentences of Proposal No. 14, on Page 11, with the following: ' "MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, will be developed as a one-way couplet with a total of six travel lanes, three in each direction." 3. Replace Proposal No. 20, on Page 12, with the following: "Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, will be developed as a one-way couplet, as discussed under Proposal No. 14." rculation Element Amendment Sheet --Page 3 General Plan Amendment ~umber 7-1-B 3-1-C 79-2 Date of City Council Adoption March 28, 1977 August 14, 1978 December 8, 1980 Amendment An amendment to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways to delete the "Secondary Road - Four Lanes Undivided" designation for that portion of Backbay Drive between San Joaquin Hills Road and the intersection of Backbay Drive and Jamboree Road just north of Coast Highway. An amendment to the Circulation Element as follows: 1. Indicate proposed realignment of Superi- or Avenue at intersection with Coast Highway on Master Plan of Streets and Highways. 2. Amend Master Plan to show ex-tension of Balboa Boulevard north of Coast Highway relocated to a more westerly alignment. 3. Amend the Circulation Element text to reflect the ongoing widening of Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard. 4. Delete the previously proposed northerly alignment of coast Highway around Newport Shores from the Master plan. Change the Master Plan of Streets and High- ways as follows: 1. Coast Highway westerly of the Santa Ana River be designated as primary road, four lane divided; 2. Brookhurst Street be designated major road, six lane divided; 3. 19th St.reet west.erly from Santa Ana River to Brookhurst be designated as primary road, four lane divided, 4. 17th street between Placentia Avenue and Balboa Boulevard extended be designated as secondary road, four lane undivided; C1 RCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JANUARY 10J 1974, ADOPTED ~Y THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 11, 1974, Amended by: Gene ra 1 P hn Amendment No. 4. Re~olu1;ion No. 8314; adppted by the City Council on J u1y 22. 1974. GeneNl Pl an I)mendment No. 5, Resolution No. 8315; adopted by the City Counc; 1 on July 22. 1974. General Pl,n Amendment No.9. Re.olution No. 8398; adopted bY the City Council on December 9. 1974. General P 1 al') Amendment No. 23 (portion). Resolution No. 8448; adopted by the Ci ty Counc; 1 on March 10. 1975. General Plan Amendment No. 23 (portion) , Resolution No. 8458; adl)pted by the City Council on March 24. 1975. rculation Element Amendment Sheet --Page 3 General Plan Amendment ~umber 7-1-B 3-1-C 79-2 Date of City Council Adoption March 28, 1977 August 14, 1978 December 8, 1980 Amendment An amendment to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways to delete the "Secondary Road - Four Lanes Undivided" designation for that portion of Backbay Drive between San Joaquin Hills Road and the intersection of Backbay Drive and Jamboree Road just north of Coast Highway. An amendment to the Circulation Element as follows: 1. Indicate proposed realignment of Superi- or Avenue at intersection with Coast Highway on Master Plan of Streets and Highways. 2. Amend Master Plan to show ex-tension of Balboa Boulevard north of Coast Highway relocated to a more westerly alignment. 3. Amend the Circulation Element text to reflect the ongoing widening of Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard. 4. Delete the previously proposed northerly alignment of coast Highway around Newport Shores from the Master plan. Change the Master Plan of Streets and High- ways as follows: 1. Coast Highway westerly of the Santa Ana River be designated as primary road, four lane divided; 2. Brookhurst Street be designated major road, six lane divided; 3. 19th St.reet west.erly from Santa Ana River to Brookhurst be designated as primary road, four lane divided, 4. 17th street between Placentia Avenue and Balboa Boulevard extended be designated as secondary road, four lane undivided; rculation Element Amendment Sheet --Page 5 General Plan Amendment Number Date of City Council Adoption 9-2 (Continued) 81-2-F February 11, 1985 82-1 October 24, 1983 84-1 September 24, 1984 Amendment The number of lanes to be included in the various categories of one-way couplet be defined in the Circulation Element as fol- lows: a. Secondary couplet -2 lanes for each leg. b. Primary couplet - 3 lanes for each leg. c. Major couplet - 4 lanes for each leg. The number of lanes would be considered to be through-lanes with added turning lanes being provided, where necessary, at intersections and drive entrances. The Master Plan of Bikeways and Bikeways Plan Text is to be incorporated into the Circula- tion Element. An amendment to the Circulation Element as follows: 1. That the Eas"tbluff Drive extension be deleted from the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. 2. Tha"t the extension of Uni versi ty Drive South to Eastbluff Drive North be designated on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a Primary Road, four lane divided. An Amendment to the Circulation Element as follows: Arterial roads in the Irvine Coastal Area include Pacific Coast Highway, Sand Canyon Avenue, Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Specific proposal for these arterial highways are as follows: 1. Pacific Coast Highway: Pacific Coast Highway is a major (six lane, divided) roadway providing primary access to the Irvine Coastal Area. .dtion Amendment Sheet --Page 7 eneral Plan .mendment Number 4-1 (Continued Date of City Council Adoption Amendment provements, while the State of Califor- nia shall be responsible for construc- tion of the additional two (2) lanes in consideration of their need for Sand Canyon Avenue for Crystal Cove State Park access. Relative to Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast Area, The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right-of-way and grading for the full major arterial highway (six (6) lanes divided) and the construction of four (4) travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improvements and, if the annual Development Monitoring Program shows that the additional two (2) lanes are necessary to adequately serve residen- tial, Tourist Recreation/Commercial and/ or recreational transportation needs, no additional development of any kind shall be approved until The Irvine Company and City agree on provisions for timely con- struction of the additional two (2) lanes. 2. Prior to any development inland of Pacific Coast Highway, a program shall be established by the developer, subject to the approval of this Board, to assist in financing of improvements and dedica- tion of right-of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 3. Prior to recordation of the first tract inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the developer shall establish a program for providing an adequate inland circulation system, which system shall include at least one (1) new road connecting to acceptable inland highways to serve the plan area other than Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Such circulation system program shall meet the approval of the City of Newport Beach and shall include a phasing program for the developer construction of such new inland access road. Circulation Element Amendment Sheet --Page 4 General Plan Amendment Number 79-2 (Continued) Date of City Council Adoption 5. Amendment 17th Street between Newport Boulevard and Placentia Avenue be designated as primary road, four lane divided1 6. Orange Avenue, between 17th Street and 19th Street be designated as secondary road, four lane undivided, 7. 19th Street, between Irvine Avenue and Tustin Avenue be designated as secondary road, four lane undivided1 8. Del Mar Avenue, between Irvine Avenue and Newport Boulevard be designated as primary road, four lane divided; 9. North Bristol Street, between University Drive North and Red Hill be designated as primary couplet; 10. University Drive, easterly of MacArthur Boulevard be designated as major road, six lane divided; 11 •. San Miguel DriVe, north of Ford Road be realigned to more closely conform to alignment shown on the Master Plans of Orange County and City of Irvine; 12. Bonita Canyon Road, easterly of MacArthur Boulevard be designated as major road, six lane divided; 13. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corri- dor extend "Routes that require further consideration" designated easterly and show the name, 14. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet be extended to show the couplet beginning northerly of San Joaquin; MacArthur Boulevard, between Avocado Avenue and Coast Highway be designated as primary couplet, Avocado Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road be designated as primary couplet; 15. Spy Glass Hill Road, between San Joaquin Hills Road and Coast Highway be deleted. rculation Element Amendment Sheet --Page 5 General Plan Amendment Number Date of City Council Adoption 9-2 (Continued) 81-2-F February 11, 1985 82-1 October 24, 1983 84-1 September 24, 1984 Amendment The number of lanes to be included in the various categories of one-way couplet be defined in the Circulation Element as fol- lows: a. Secondary couplet -2 lanes for each leg. b. Primary couplet - 3 lanes for each leg. c. Major couplet - 4 lanes for each leg. The number of lanes would be considered to be through-lanes with added turning lanes being provided, where necessary, at intersections and drive entrances. The Master Plan of Bikeways and Bikeways Plan Text is to be incorporated into the Circula- tion Element. An amendment to the Circulation Element as follows: 1. That the Eas"tbluff Drive extension be deleted from the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. 2. Tha"t the extension of Uni versi ty Drive South to Eastbluff Drive North be designated on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a Primary Road, four lane divided. An Amendment to the Circulation Element as follows: Arterial roads in the Irvine Coastal Area include Pacific Coast Highway, Sand Canyon Avenue, Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Specific proposal for these arterial highways are as follows: 1. Pacific Coast Highway: Pacific Coast Highway is a major (six lane, divided) roadway providing primary access to the Irvine Coastal Area. Circulation Amendment Sheet --Page 6 General Plan Amendment Number 84-1 (Continued) Date of City Council Adoption 2. Amendment Sand Canyon Avenue: Sand Canyon Avenue is designated as a Primary Road, (two lane, divided). This road is proposed to provide sidewalks, bikeways and one travel lane in each direction with an extra uphill lane provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic. 3. Pelican Hill Road: Pelican Hill Road is designated as a Major Road (six lane, divided). This road is proposed to provide sidewalks, bikeways and three travel lanes in each direction. An extra uphill lane will be provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic. 4. San Joaquin Hills Road: San Joaquin Hills Road is designated as a Major Road (six lane, divided) con- necting the existing terminus of the road in Newport Beach to Sand Canyon Avenue. The following policies apply to the circu- lation system in the Irvine Coast Area: 1. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract maps or other implementing regulations for areas inland of Pacific Coast Highway, The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall prepare a phasing program which shall provide for the construction of ultimate street improvements in the Irvine Coast Area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand Canyon Avenue as primary arterial highway, in a timely manner meeting -the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Relative to implementation of Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast Area, 'rhe Irvine Company, or its succes- sors or assigns, and the State of California shall participate in provid- ing the right-of-way and grading for the full arterial highway (four (4) lanes divided) and the constructions of two (2) travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median im- .dtion Amendment Sheet --Page 7 eneral Plan .mendment Number 4-1 (Continued Date of City Council Adoption Amendment provements, while the State of Califor- nia shall be responsible for construc- tion of the additional two (2) lanes in consideration of their need for Sand Canyon Avenue for Crystal Cove State Park access. Relative to Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast Area, The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right-of-way and grading for the full major arterial highway (six (6) lanes divided) and the construction of four (4) travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improvements and, if the annual Development Monitoring Program shows that the additional two (2) lanes are necessary to adequately serve residen- tial, Tourist Recreation/Commercial and/ or recreational transportation needs, no additional development of any kind shall be approved until The Irvine Company and City agree on provisions for timely con- struction of the additional two (2) lanes. 2. Prior to any development inland of Pacific Coast Highway, a program shall be established by the developer, subject to the approval of this Board, to assist in financing of improvements and dedica- tion of right-of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 3. Prior to recordation of the first tract inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the developer shall establish a program for providing an adequate inland circulation system, which system shall include at least one (1) new road connecting to acceptable inland highways to serve the plan area other than Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Such circulation system program shall meet the approval of the City of Newport Beach and shall include a phasing program for the developer construction of such new inland access road. Circulation Amendment Sheet --Page 8 General Plan Amendment Number 84-1 (Continued) NBGP5 Date of City Council Adoption 4. Amendment Prior to issuance of the building permit for the one hundred and first (101st) single family residence or the issuance of the building permit for the three hundred and fifty-first (351st) hotel or motel room (and directly related support facili ties not to exceed 26, 000 square feet) inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the developer shall construct and complete a new inland road connection to serve the area other than Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, all in accordance with the approved Inland circulation System Program.