Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.17 CIRCULATION ELEMENT*NEW FILE* 13.17 CIRCULATION ELEMENT I 310 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDMENT THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN (PORTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 23). WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, said Circulation Element sets forth objectives, policies, and standards for the development of the circulation system in the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Circulation Element, a portion of which amendment calls for the following changes: 1. Revise the "Master Plan of Streets and Highways" (map) to designate Coast Highway' through Mariners' Mile as a "Major Road - Six Lane Divided." 2. Reword Proposal No. 4 on Page 7 of the Circulation Element to read as follows: "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;" and WHEREAS,'the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council said amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing to FILE vO�� DO NOT REMOVE 0 0 consider said amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt that portion of General Plan Amendment No. 23 as described herein above. ADOPTED this day of Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1975. HC:TC:jmb PLANNING DIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 8 20 6 C CITYOF RESOLUTION F THE NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE�L�mp)� CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT Gt 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 as a 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 Council adopt said element; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing .to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element as a part of the City's General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt the Circulation Element described above, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ADOPTED this MAR 11 1974 day of 1974. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor DO 'NOT REMOVE RFCF ED 0 ent Devpept. DRB/bc PJIAR .1819 7a� 9 2/26/74 CITY CBEACH, ` NEWP�AUr. c% i, aMw )3� ►I RESOLUTION NO. 875 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO RECONSIDER THE SEGMENT OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND JAMBOREE ROAD IN CONNECTION WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a phase of the City's General Plan program I . has involved the preparation of a Circulation Element; and WHEREAS, said Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies to be followed in the planning of the future develop- ment of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held public hearings to consider the adoption of said Element; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held public hearings to consider the adoption of said Element; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of January 17, 1974, the Planning Commission rescinded its prior action regarding the segment of Pacific Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road and declared its intention to reconsider said segment. NOW, THEREFORE, BRIT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission intends to reconsider the segment of Pacific Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road in connection with the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan at a public hearing to be held on the 7th day of February, 1974, at the hour of 3:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. DONOT REMOVE 16 I y, ) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Newport Beach Planning Commission is hereby directed to publish notice of said hearing in accordance with the requirements of law. + Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on the 17th day of January, 1974. AYES: Beckley, Hazewinkel, Heather, Seely NOES: Agee, Parker, Rosener ABSENT: None Chairman Willi Agee S�Teta3+y 5oseph Rosen, Jr. -2- DRB/bc 1/28/74 PLANNTNG NT ITSTON RESOLUTION No. 8 17,6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS .ADVISORY AD HOC PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BAY CROSSING PLANNING COMMITTEE S%,4.h6N'T WHEREAS, the efficient functioning of the City's business requires the creation of special subcommittees of the City Council to study, review and make recommendations concerning appropriate action Council should take regarding specific issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council has established procedural policies governing the creation of such committees by resolution to insure clarity of assignment, conduct and operations of such committees; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a committee to study and make recommendations regarding a Pacific Coast Highway Bay crossing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby establish the Pacific Coast Highway Bay Crossing Planning Committee, with the following Membership and Functions: A. Committee representation (7-member committee) 1. One member appointed by each member of the City Council B. Ex Officio representation 1. By way of illustration, but not limitation, the Committee may request assistance from: (a) Public Works Department (b) Community Development Department (c) State Department of Transportation (d) Orange County Road Department (e) Orange County Harbor, Beaches and Parks District (f) The Friends of Newport Bay (g) The Irvine Company (h) Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce; and (i) Appropriate Community Association representatives. AD St' �6 Y taEE-'VED community )ev 01 .r D.:?rt , JAN 2 11974w 9 Cirr oP NEwPCitr'BEncH, �, -1- FILE QW17 1/17/74 ��l _ i�i "' DO NOT REMOVE M �J C. Purpose and Function 1. Define and coordinate local interests (a) Basic design perimeters (b) Funding (c) Environmental concerns 2. Expedite construction (a) Conduct public hearings (b) Recommend course of action to City Council, County, State and Federal agencies (c) Oversee implementation. ADOPTED this 14th -day of January, 1974. ATTEST: City Clerk RILLE t" Y RESOLUTION NO. 873 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN DO NOT REMOVE 13.11 WHEREAS, a phase of the City's General Plan Program has involved the preparation 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 Planning 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 City of Newport Beach held on the loth day of January 1974. AYES: Agee, Beckley, Hazewinkel, Heather, Parker, Rosener, Seely NOES: None ABSENT: None Chairman William gee Joseph Ro en•er, Jr DRB/bc 1/15/74 FILE COPVjI RESOLUTION NO. 863 DO 'NOT REMOVE 1311 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF 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 of the Newport Beach General Plan sets forth objectives ,and supporting policies to be followed in the planning of the future development of the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, Section 707 of the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach requires the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing prior to the adoption of any element of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission intends to consider adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan at a public hearing to be held on the 13th day of December, 1973, at the hour of 3:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Newport Beach Planning Commission is hereby directed to publish notice of said hearing in accordance with the requirements. of law. Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on the 8th day of November, 1973. AYES: Agee, Beckley, Hazewi'nkel, Parker, Rosener, Seely NOES: None ABSENT: Heather r" Chairman Wi 11 i-am A 'ee 5e r tart' Joseph Rosener, J DRB /bc 13.1a L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA EIR/NB 74-046 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN. I. This E.I.R. has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the C.E.Q.A. and the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. It is the intent of this report to explore and evaluate the signifi- cant city-wide environmental impacts of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Circulation Element provides a long-range guide to the provision of circulation routes and facilities within the City of Newport Beach. It is intended that this Circulation Element satisfy the State requirement that local General Plans contain a Circulation Element (Section 65300 of the Government Code). II. SCOPE OF REPORT This "project" is not a development project in the normal sense, but rather a long-range plan.for circulation routes and facilities. As such, there will be no immediate effect on the physical environment of the City. Therefore, this E.I,R, discusses the probable long-term environmental impacts resulting from the adoption and implementation of this Element. Individual projects proposed within the context of this Element will be subject to detailed environmental review under the requirements of the C.E.Q.A. and the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. III. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Newport Beach is blessed with ,a .unique geographical 'setting, located on the Pacific Ocean and containing Newport Bay, which results in a great demand for transportation to, and circulation within, the City. This unique geographical setting also creates unique circulation problems in terms of travel desires and physical constraints. -1- I 6 The area's cultural activities, financial activities, commercial activities, industrial activities, civic activities, and recrea- 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. IV. CIRCULATION OBJECTIVES The proposals contained in the Circulation Element are based on the General Plan Policy report adopted by the City Council on March 13, 1972. Following are the policies relating to the Circulation Element excerpted from the General Plan Policy report: GENERAL OBJECTIVE It is the objective of the City of Newport Beach to ensure the orderly development of those facilities which promote the safe, attractive, convenience, and economical movement of people and goods within the Newport Beach area; to ensure the development of all such facilities in a manner which will minimize any detri- mental effects upon the environmental quality of the City; and to assist in the development of a total circulation system to serve the present and future needs of the Orange county region. SUPPORTING POLICIES a) The local transportation system shall serve as an integral part of the broader regional transportation network, including a balance between various alternate modes of transportation such as highways, mass transit, air and water facilities, that will coordinate local and regional transportation needs and the needs of various age and socio-economic groups. b) The City shall continue the active investigation of all planned local and regional transportation systems to determine the impact of each on the community, and to ensure that all such facilities serve to protect and maintain the sociological•, ecological, economic and aesthetic environment of the Newport Beach area. -2- c) Freeways, in particular, shall not bisect or isolate individual communities, neighborhoods, business areas, parks or other homogeneous areas within the City, and shall be designed in such a manner as to protect and enhance any adjacent land uses. 1. Consistent with the objective and policies to preserve the environmental quality of the community, the City shall continue to oppose the development of the Route 1 (Pacific Coast) Freeway within the coastal corridor of Newport Beach. 2. The City shall promote the future routing of the Corona del Mar Freeway to an alignment which would be northerly from its present planned route through Corona del Mar. As one alterna- tive, the City should consider a possible align- ment of the freeway to a location near or adjacent to Bonita Canyon - Coyote Canyon Road. d) Recognizing the vital relationship which exists between the street and highway network and the use of land, the City shall limit and control the distribution, character and intensity of all land uses which would generate increased levels of traffic beyond the capacity of the existing or planned street system. e) Every attempt should be made to subordinate the automobile in older high -density areas. Alternate means of transportation should be fully explored. f) In view of increasing demands and the economic pressures to expand air transportation services in the Orange County region, the City shall actively encourage and participate in the planning and development of a regional airport facility at a location which will be least detrimental to surrounding residents and adjacent land Uses. The new facilities should be developed for occupancy by 1977 - the date on which specific air facility leases may be -3- considered for termination or renewal. g) The present location of the Orange County Airport is unacceptable as a site for a regional airport facility and should therefore be restricted to its ultimate function as a local airport, confined to the use of non -jet commercial carriers capable of short take -offs and landings and small privately operated non -jet business and pleasure type aircraft. h) The City shall also promote and assist in the development of adequate regulations and controls to reduce the present levels of noise, pollution and other hazards associated with the operations of the Orange County Airport and ensure that such regulations and controls are developed and maintained as a standard that is found to be acceptable to the City of Newport Beach. i) Facilities and landing areas for any helicopter or other short landing and takeoff aircraft within the City shall be limited as to their extent, location and character of operation to protect against any adverse effect on the character or environmental quality of the community. j) The City shall encourage and assist in the planning and development of a regional mass transit system with other appropriate agencies, where such system may best serve to reduce the rising demand for adequate and efficient trans- portation facilities. k) Any mass transit system and the various local support facilities, shall each be designed and operated so as to protect and enhance the physical, social, and ecological environment of the Newport Beach area. 1) The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate regulations to assure the provision of sufficient off- street parking with all new developments and encourage joint public -private efforts to improve parking conditions in existing developed areas. -4- m) The City shall ensure the provision of adequate side- walks and other pedestrian ways and initiate the development of a safe and attractive bicycle trail system throughout the City. n) The City shall encourage the,use of a small boat system for sight-seeing passengers in and around the bay. The system shall be designed in such a way as to protect existing residents and uses which front on the bay. o) The City shall encourage the maintenance of the existing ferry system between Balboa Island and the peninsula. V. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Circulation Element proposes a city-wide network of streets and highways and places the major emphasis on the use of the private automobile for transportation to, and circulation within, the City. This is done based on today's knowledge of individual desires and today's technology. Subsequent revisions to this Element will include proposal's for public transit in order to reduce dependence on the automobile; however, it is apparent that the private automobile will continue to be the predominant mode of transportation within the foreseeable future. The emphasis on automobile transportation -will result in certain adverse environmental impacts, including: 1. Air Pollution - The Orange County Air Pollution Control Board has indicated that motor vehicles are responsible for 98 percent of all air pollutants. 2. Water Pollution - Motor vehicles result in the deposit of oils, fuels, and tire rubber on streets which are then washed into the bay and ocean. These pollutants are detrimental to marine life and the aesthetics of the water areas. 3. Noise - Motor vehicles are a major contributor to noise pollution. (This problem will be discussed in detail in the Noise Element of the General Plan.) -5- u 4. Use of Land - The construction of streets, highways, and parking lots results in much of the City's land area being paved over, which could have adverse effects in terms of removing valuable flora and fauna resources, limiting water penetration, and increasing water runoff and possibly erosion. VI. ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED None of the above adverse effects can be totally avoided if this Element is adopted and implemented. However, these adverse effects can be somewhat mitigated, as discussed below. VII. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT 1. The City of Newport Beach will process an amendment to the Circulation Element in the near future which will include proposals to provide public transit and discourage total dependence on the private automobile. 2. Each street and highway project will be closely scrutinized to assure that all adverse effects will be minimized. VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION One alternative is simply not to adopt a Circulation Element. This would be in violation of the State Government Code which requires cities to adopt a Circulation Element. A second alternative would be to adopt a Circulation Element which does not include proposals for upgrading streets and highways. While this may discourage use of automobiles, it would also result in mass congestion. This congestion would cause adverse environmental effects and would be unacceptable in social and economic terms. IX. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The Circulation Element is a long-range guide for the provision of circulation routes and facilities. Q:fl • • X. ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION, SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The construction of street segments and other facilities will result in irreversible environmental changes within the public rights -of -way indicated on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. These changes include: 1. Destruction of flora, 2. Grading of surface, and 3. Construction and paving. XI. THE GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The adoption and implementation of this Element will have no growth -inducing impa-ct, but will serve the transportation needs resulting from the City's growth. XII. SUMMARY The adoption and implementation of the Circulation Element will result in certain unavoidable adverse environmental effects. However, these adverse environmental effects must be balanced against social and economic factors. It should be stressed that any individual projects proposed within the context of this Element will be subject to detailed environmental review as required by the C.E.Q.A. and the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. -7- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NEWPORT HARBOR ENSIGN STATE OF CALIFORNIAi as. County of Orange i .ARVU E. HAAPA I, ..................................................... being first duly sworn, and on oath depose and say that I am the printer and publisher of the Newport Harbor Ensign, a weekly newspaper printed and published in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that the .... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................ .................................................................................. I....... of which 1.1G�:. i1071EE�. . copy attached hereto Is a true and complete copy, was i• printed and published in the regular issue(s) of said NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING newspaper, and not In a supplement, .....1........... consecu- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN ttve times: to -wit the Issuethat the City council of thes) of .City of Newport Beach win ......... I.......... March..7?....1974........................ i hold a public hearing regarding adoption of the. circuhition ............................................................ Element of the Newport Beach """"""""" "" General Plan; review of the Newport Beach"Traffic Study, Phase fII; and acceptance of ...................................................................................... Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73_045. .................................................................................... NOTICE IS HEREBY FUR— THERGIVEN that the said Pub(Signed)......... V the I hearing of Will'March, rc held on .................................. the llth day of'March,'1979, Subscribed and sworn to before me this _...th'.....day of at the hour of Chambers f the in the Council,Ghambers of the City March 74 Hall of the City of • Newport .................................................19......... ;Beach, California, at which, time and place any and all `Ltisc_�,�' persons Interested may appear Nota.ry/p"ublic in and for the ' and be' heard thereon, . County of Orange, State of California. Laura Lagios City Clerk City of Newport'Beach I� ` Publish: March 7, 1974, in the ,Newport Harbor Ensign. i 1 0 � �� MARY A HAAPA ' .�' N<rory Pubtic-Coldornia � ry3� PRI!•:CiPAL OFFICE IN ORANGE COUNTY LMY YCOMd{,L5510N EXPIRES DECEMBEQ �O,f Q�) /%}. 4.9/1 FILE CC®P ur Or;T CF J DO NOT REMOVE / w > Authorized to Publish Adveifisements of all kinds, including public notices by Docree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A•6214, dated 29 September,'1961, and A•24831, dated II June, 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Public Notice Advertising covered bV this atndaVit is set in 6 point County of Orange with 11 pica column width. 1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS - PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and pul Orange, Publ: NEWP( of whicl copy, w Mesa, Beach, Capisfn One Marc I declart Is true e Executec at Costa _ 13 1/ `73 This space for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp proof of Publication of cirPcu��r�av 13. II ' el.14 -I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NEWPORT HARBOR ENSIGN STATE OF CALIFORNIA) es. County of Orange j 1 ........ARVO EHAAPA ......................................... being first duly sworn, and on oath depose and say that I am the printer and publisher of the Newport Harbor Ensign, a weekly newspaper printed and published in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that the.... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ........................................................... .......................................................................................... of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the regular issue(s) of said newspaper, and not in a supplement, ......1.......... consecu- tive times: to -wit the issue(s) of Jan. 24, 1974 .......................................... (Signed).. .....X!4 Subscribed and sworn to before me this.26.th.day of ......................January 74 Nota Public in and for tlKe Co of Orange, State of California. ICIAL SEALA:M Y A. HAAPA Pubbc - CcliforrjiaCIPAL OFFICE INANGE COUNTYS DECEMBE@2v lye (NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission ofthe rt Bech , ;hold Ca public hof heearingaon the; t Circulation Element of the (Newport Beach General Plan - to reconsider the segment of Coast Highway between Mac-, Arthur Blvd. and Jamboree, Road with a possibility of an Interchange at MacArthur Blvd., and Coast Highway. I Notice is hereby further' given that said public hearings' will be held on the 7th day of February, 1974, at the hour . )of 7:00 p.m. in the Cbuncil `. -Chambers of the Newport 1 Beach City Hail, at wbich time I land place any and all persons, +'interested may appear and be; heard thereon. Joseph Rosener, Jr. Secretary Newport Beach City Planning Commission Publish: January 24, 1974, id the Newport Harbor Ensign, DO NOT REMOVE FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE L Tv- C 0 EGG ».c i. �'-��� _��^z BOX 102 Y BALBOA ISLAND, CALIF. 92662 June 3, 1977 JUN ; 1977:�- C(n• tT 11B.'ro-w L'-'ACH, \ U1ih. A To all City Council Members:, Concerning General Plan Policies in re- lation to Circulation Element, Land Use Element, and projected growth. STATEMENT FROM SPON - It is our opinion that: 1. The present and future growth and development is in conflict with many General Plan Policies including the following: a. "Protect and enhance the special charm and character". ( "quotes" are General Plan Policies) The visual, noise, air quality, safety, recreational aspects (bikes, walking) amenities are in jeopardy. b. "Assure through positive controls over urban growth the preser- vation and enhancement of the high quality of life" The interpretation of "high quality" is at stake here and we feel we are grossly lowering its standards if we are to respect our original plans to be "a low density residential, marine oriented recreational (high quality) community". C. "Limits on population and dwelling unit densities" "Limits on intensity of commercial and industrial developments." We have exploited the terms "limits" and totally misused it if we intend to be a "low density residential community" etc, d. "Commercial areas supported by appropriate trade area - con- sistent with prime 'concept of image of community." The current trend to be a regional commercial and financial center is certainly not in keeping with the intended image of the community. 2. The Circulation Element allows certain roadways and situations not in keeping with the General Plan Policies and concept of image of community. ("quotes" are from Circulation'Element) ;t•r, a. "People and vehicles without interest, origin, or destination in the area should be kept out". We have allowed commercial development to an extent beyond the intent of basic policies which bring excessive people. ,,,_p,,,.;;,,,;C it is a conflict to bring people for hotels and conventions for instance. We should: Limit future commercial intensity. ( Increase mass transit to Newport Center, so other areas aren't infiltrated by cars. Pitg:; 2 - Sl'O.; concerning Gen. Plan b. San Joaquin Road as a 6 lane major highway conflicts with General Plan policies in terms of bringing excessive cars. c. University Drive extension conflicts with General Plan Policies in terms of the environment, the "through" traffic, excessive cars. 3. The projected growth and development which necessitates roadways. as described in the Newport Center Phase III report is totally in conflict with the Circulation Element, the General Plan Policies, and the prime concept of the image of our community. 4. We feel that the roadway expansion should be limited to that which was accepted in the Circulation Element - and that in the cases of University Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road, concern should be given to the fact that their existence as major road- ways would definitely conflict with General Plan Policies. SOLUTIONS In order to achieve the goal of limited roadway expansion, there would need to be a change in the intensity of Land Uses allowed. THE CITY SHOULD CUT DOWN ANTICIPATED CAR TRIPS PER DAY BY: 1. LIMITING ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 2. LIMITING NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OF NEW HOUSING. 3. REZONING SOME OLDER AREAS. 4. CARRYING OUR CONCERN TO REGIONAL DECISIONS IN'ORDER TO LIMIT INFILTRATION FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY. SUPPORTING MATERIAL SPOPN has made an effort to ascertain from its membership as well as other interested residents their response to pertinent questions. The importance of our findings lies in these figures: SPON's paid membership includes approximately 215 families. SPo*N's mailing list includes approximately 700.families. Ali of the above are actively concerned residents of Newport Beach. We have received so far 55 responses from member families. we have received so far 48•responses from non-member families. There is indication of strong support for our concerns from a large segment of the communityo especially since non -responding members .are in agreement with our purpose and goals. Here are the questions and summary of answers. (See enclosed question- naire for details of questions). 1. The Ganaral Plan should be amended to lower allowable residen- tial densities. YES 112 NO 4 Som^ said new developments only 18 Some said old developments only 8 F. Most said in both new and old developments 94. 2. la commercial intensity growing too rapidly? YES 80 No 7 3. Should Newport allow more hotels? YES 5 NO 93 ha.go 3 - SPON concerning Gen. Plan 4: Should existing hotel expand? YES 24 NO 61 5. Will hotels bring pressure for orange County airport expansion? YES 91. NO l 6. Are you in favor of the subsidy to Convention and Visitors Bureau? YES 0 NO 95 7. Should the General Plan be amended to correct the situation arising for need of excess lanes, signals etc. YES 85 NO 3 Are noise, visual, and air pollution -factors not being given enough consideration'in expanded road plans? YES 88 NO 5 SUMMARY OF RESPONSE 1. There is strong support for amending the General Plan to lower allowable residential densities. There were a "significant few" who indicated this should happen in new developments only, but, the definite majority felt that it should be done in both old and new areas. 2. The overwhelming majority supported the view that commercial intensity is growing too rapidly. 3. The overwhelming majority felt that we should allow no new hotels. A majority felt that existing hotels should not expand but a sig- nificant number agreed to expansion of existing hotels under certain' limited circumstances such as: "not in Coastal area "a 3.imited amount"; "if necessary"; "reasonably". 4. Not one response denied that more hotels would bring more pressure on the Orange County Airport. One person slaid that was good. 5. The "VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU" subsidy received a RESOUNDINGLY NEGATIVE RESPONSE. It was by far the most definitive in terms of rejection by the populace, including comments such as "Preposterous" and others you will see on our comment page. 6. The wording of our last questions led to some confusion so that, to some degree, it may invalidate the response. But, accepting that difficulty, the response was that the vast majority believe we should limit land use in order to limit expansion of roadways and limit congestion etc. All but 4 felt that noise, pollution, air pollution, and visual. pollution are receiving too little attention. We will continue to work toward bringing you valid community responses n and more definitive suggestions. Sincerely, , Jean Watt, SPON President SPON Steering Committee Enc. 4 pgs. Comments 7 SPON-0-GRAMS M y. Page 1 FOR COMMENTS AGAINST' "We moved to Orange County to avoid traffic - smog and "high rises". Now the area is being, ruined for Irv0e CO - profit. Could some of .the money be ::pent on paving the much needed streets on the island. Particularly - Balboa Ave. and Crystal on the LiTtle Island. I feel I am living in an expensive slum area. Signed Mrs. Marion Kensey I am really glad that there is an organization like SPON to solicit and promote the ideas and best interests of all residents. Signed Mr. & Mrs. Lewis Fannon Under traffic: "to begin, reduce the cause, not spend money to correct. Signed M/M John Livadary "Building code - ordinances - or whatever - should be stringently en- forced - B � on Balboa island - has too many loopholes, evidently! ?? or does Planning Commission understand its intent - or ???" signed John W. Werlie Under traffic: "yes - land use should be cut back. signed Mrs. Roy Giordano "Let's keep Newport Beach Beautiful by lower densities. My wife & I strongly support the containment of Orange County Airport to its present level of operations. Do you realize that our conversations in our home have to cease while planes are overhead & it's impossible to hear the T.V. until they have passed". Signed M/M Morris Pivaroff "The Back Bay Bridge: A second bridge from 16th or 17th 'to the P.C. Highway would alleviate much of the traffic jam at the bridge & intersection of P.C.H. & Dover". Signed M/M R. Bare "There should be a moratorium on all major development until the problem of traffic congestion -is -address and a satisfactory solution found". Signed N/M Milton Hand "SPON should stick to their polution (Bay) project". Loot signed. . "Newport Beach needs to grow. More roads are needed. More housing is need, especially lower cost housing to provide a place for young people to live. The new generation of Newport born and raised kids can't live in their hometown due to selfish attitudes of no-growther This must be corrected. The community will improve culturally and socially if we allow new, fresh growth. More high rise and high density development will help to provide homes that are needed. The three miles along the coast should be in- corporated into the city and high density development like Promintory Point should be en- couraged to house the many good people who giant a place to live. The Good Lord did not make the coast just for the rich nor for Newport Beach old timers. We can only improve our community if we expand to allow for our children and new people to come to the beach as we; all once did years ago:" Not signed. ;xpr 5, Page COM.ENTS "WeIcc moving ,to Reno and I just hope you have strong support by the people. coming -to N.B." ,• Sincorely, Jeanne Frantz "'Po City Council Urgent'. Emergency moritorium on all Bldg. until P.C.H. Bridge is widened. The City of N.B. is losing retail business to H. Bch. and Costa Mesa because of the bottle neck and the bridge getting to and from Fashion Island. 5ignad Winton Ashton, Balboa "The City should have an overall plan to limit housing and consequently growth in population to no more than 1% per annum. It is already too crowded as it is. We need a public public or some open space for rec- reation not more hotels!" Signed Dr. John Chiu "if something isn't done to limit the population growth in this area we will become another Cony Island N.X. In the summer we have almost reached that point." Signed Mrs. Don A. Bohler "Present Highways and public facilities (utilities etc.), do not properly handle present population with"visitors and thru traffic. Airport noise is already endangering property values and desirability of Newport in general and further increase in noise levels would be disasterous to whole Newport area. Signed Boltwood E. & Margaret H. Dodson "The question as with all restrictive growth problems is the problem of establishing equity - ie rights of the property owner vs rights of the citizens - obviously our rights are taken away, when we are unable to move physically from one point to another - I would think that until the congestion on the Coast Highway is resolved that all development, old and new that would increase traffic be delayed. Signed P. Twombley "Newport Beach is becoming a big city. We left that for a quaint lovely beach town but this is changing so whatever you can do to stop this so called progress I am in favor and so is my husband, Dr. Eugene Melinkoff. Look what is happening to our crime rate - keep the beach the way it used to be." Dr. & Mrs. Eugene Melinkoff "I am against almost all expansion whether it be roads, bridges, population, or buildings of any kind. I am in favor of our City Government respond- ing -affirmatively to the desires of the people not what they (the City Admin) thinks we ought to want. I am getting to the point that we ought to have the populace vote on everything & do away with the council. " Alan Blum "Everybody at City Hall sanctimoniously want to preserve the special, fine -and -dandy environment of Newport Beach. Every month what is left of a once glorious environment is further eroded. When will our City Council and Planning Commission have the guts to follow the example of true en- vironmentalists like those in Santa Barbara?" Harry Kamph re: Visitors Bureau subsidy: "This is the biggest potential rip-off of the decade!" 0 4 G. Page 3 COMMENTS "yeriy,, much, opposed. to Dunes and Holiday Harbour •hotels . •."v Eileen C. Strock 225 Via Lido Nord NPB Ca. 92663 "Our. beautiful City is expanding much too rapidly. one can't blame those wiio want to move here - I did it myself 33 yrs, ago, but this influx of people and traffic must now be slowed or we no longer will have such a 1�sirable location." Signed Bill S. Pigg "The loss of coastal views is particularly troublesome. Once lost - is lost forever. Nees strong support for protection of some good view areas like Inspiration Point. I am glad SPON is interested in these matters." " Mr. & Mrs. George Hall "Number of people/acre and units/acre should be as low as possible." Under traffic: Very bad due to narrow bridge. When that is corrected, will more lanes be necessary?", bars. Ann Spencer "Keep up the good work." Ken Elgin "The Convention & Visitors Bureau should be abolished. We need more visitors like we need the plague! The present traffic jam and pollution simply must be relieved, not compounded. Existing hotels, we are told, are enjoying excellent business, which is fine, BUT, no more expansion and certainly no more new hotels! More hotel space :would undoubtedly create a demand for airport expansion. More flights, more racket and more pollution we just don't need! Our elected o•Eficials had better get to the task of alleviating the misery we now endure as a result of their permissive planning(?)* . We wish only prosperity for the business firms in our community but when proposed expansion will further strangle our residents, it is simply time to apply the brakes. We had also better braces ourselves for the impact of the development program which will soon be instituted by the new owners of the Irvine Company. They expect a rapid return of their multi million dollar in- vestment plus a healthy profit., With all their financial power, we just may see our beautiful area rock like a skiff in a storm. we had better not just rely on a defense, we had much better organize an OFFENSE, now!". Signed William Spencer "we were absolutely opposed ,to the Coast Freeway & are delighted it was, defeated. There will always be traffic problems in an area like Newport zuach at particular times. Certainly, one of them on Balboa island in the summer. However, widening too many streets or planning new freeways has been proved to increase, rather than decrease most traffic problems. b more walking, mini buses, bicycling etc. & lowering density are the only :Znswr•_rs. Also no more increases in air traffic. The noise in our skys is appalling:" Signed 14/24 Warren White CI10 OF NEWPORT BEA* 7' COUNCILMEN �o pL �c\o c pN\Fy�y !LL CALL June I MINUTES 13, 1977 INDEX f' is `- •:Y r.�in,1_C ri ...._. (ejTq;Pending Legis�at oa-and Et,4icq,,.oMittee, .F,, SB Pi a:resolution from the City of Brea expressing '"Opposition to Senate Bill 42, the "Deter- jfflnate Sentencing Act of 1976," as drafted, .,8nd urging immediate emergency amendments. (Copies mailed to Council) `•. (f) • To staff for reply, a petition from seven Pigeons citizens requesting a city ordinance to ban ` the raising of pigeons in residential areas. (Copies mailed to Council) `�g)_To•staff for reply, a letter from Owen Minney Davis Cup \ regarding the Davis Cup matches that were Matches -held in Newport Beach. (Copies mailed to Conn cil) (h) To ataS�for reply, a letter from Winton Animal Ashton r qqu,esting animal control on the Control beaches between Bay and Edgewater and from Montero to Fe ando•on a regular basis every day of the week. (Copies mailed to Council) (i) To staff for reply,\a letter from Dr. Harry Parking E. Reddick, Jr. regarding his parking pro- blems during the Western�Collegiate Rowing Championships. (Copies mailed to Council) (j) To staff for reply, a letter t6Mayor Dostal Dogs on from Mary Alice LeFebvre request g dog Beaches owners be allowed to use the, beach \the same hours during the summer season as the winter season and setting forth her reasons. (Copies mailed to Council) (k) To staff for reply, a letter from Mr. and Litter Mrs. S. P. Collester suggesting more time and effort be spent on the beach litter offenders and less on dogs that are temporarily off the leash while owners are cleaning up after -them. (Copies mailed to Council) (1) Plannin$ Commission for inclusion in General ,To General Plan consideration, a letter from Plan SPON concerning'General 'Pian 'policies in relation to Circri.ation Element, Land Use Element and the projected growth of the city. (Copies mailed to'Cou`ncil) - - (m) To staff for reply, a letter from Mrs. Txee�• -'Spraying Elizabeth Horn protesting the spraying of trees with menisistox by the City because"- by everything in the.area is sprayed -and City requesting notification before spray crews arrive. (Copies mailed•to Council) (n) To the,.Community Development Department for HUD ,review, a letter from the Department of Housing and Urban.Development regarding Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments In- vitations to Governmental Entities or Public Bodies which are Authorized to Engage in or Assist in the Development or Operation of Low-iucome,Housing. .(Copies mailed to Council) Volume 31 - Page 155 a Page 4 COMMENTS "The critical situation in Newport Beach is that housing density,iE' being. .incrca'sed•without a,cortesponding increase In the,6apacEt!?"d'F"'"''- the street network. •'-SInce the street carrying capacity cannot be increased at this late date it is vital to limit housing density. The back bay bride.on Co"IHiway,must be replaced immediately. it is a hazard to public health and safety right Now. Emergency equip- ment cannot get across for'either fire or hospital." Signed M/M .John Reed re: new hotels - "Only in accordance with traffic artery capabilities." Castaways are should probably be disapproved for a hotel & downzoned to 1/3 to 1 acre estates to reduce pressure on the Bay Bridge. The penninsula should be downzoned since most of the population growth " will occur here as a result of duplexes & 4 plexes in present buildings. Signed Dr. Irwin D. Hoffman "Protect open space, undeveloped land & Back Bay area: More bikeways & fewer cars:: OCTD service getting better all the time:" Not signed. "There is little question that the Coast Highway bottleneck (Jamboree to Dover Dr.) must be remedied, if only because of.the major hazard to emergency communication. Probably a second good-looking bridge from the promontory in line with Westcliff Dr. to the Coast Hwy. - Jamboree intersection would be best. Realistically one bridge is not enough. Regardless of that, the wanton overdevelopment is a genuine travesty. Terribly wasteful of our meager resources. Signed Dr. & Mrs. A. Andrews "In my opinion Newport Beach should not try to become a huge metro- politan community. The area should remain a small seaside town with low density, no freeways, no•,•commercial play area of huge proportions and no more hotels. Let"s keep Newport Beach a pleasant place for our children to growup and reside in:" Signed M/M Robert Vanasse ,, ...:1. PON q y PO BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIF. 92662 THIS NIONTH'S ISSUE ---- GENERAL PLAN AMBN'D:5NTS ---- APRIL 1977 The Planning Commission,and City Council are currently studying'the ad'equagy_, of the., ;Thera:.are •real needs -..far, change in thtr Flan;;,arid movi'izk, the .tiros to le oar'offic3als_knos�-what we•,think+•i.. , , ­ , :..�a3•.•.,... :c:,a•:,4: SPON is a voice that gets aite)t16n: 'We hope to continue to ba effective. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR OPiNIONFA%DiD RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO SPON, P.O.. BOX 1020 BALBOA ISLAND, CA. 92662.- For more information: Jean Watt 673-8164 RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER: DO YOU KNOW? There are 900 acres of undeveloped land in Newport, of which approximately 300 are approved for immediate development. The remaining 600 acres are scheduled for full development within 8 years. The Residential Element of the General Plan allows for 8000 more dwelling units at densities of not less than 6 per acre and up to a maximum of 35 per acre. (Average allowable densities are from 8-15 dwelling units per acre). This will create an additional popu- lation of approximately 20,000 in new areas of town. 10,000 more people could be "crammed" into already developed areas if no changes are made in allowable densities. DO YOU BELIEVE? The General Plan should be amended to lower the allowable residential densities? In new developments only? In older areas? Commercial intensity is growing too rapidly? DO YOU KNOW? The present General Plan allows for more hotels? Right now the Sheraton is asking for expansion and the Holiday.Harbour (Coast Hwy. & Jamboree) and the Dunes Hotels are imminent. DO YOU BELIEVE? Newport should allow development of more hotels? Existing hotels should be allowed to expand? More hotels will bring more pressure for Orange County Airport Expansion? DO YOU KNOW?' The Convention and Visitors Bureau is asking the City Council to subsidize them with approximately $120v000 per year? This would be 20% of the bed tax which is levied each year against all hotel rooms as well as all residential living units rented for 30 days or less. DO YOU BELIEVE? Private.residential rental units subject to the bed tax should contribute (through this tax) to the promotion of commercial hotel business? Are you in favor of this subsidy? TRAFFICf DO YOU KNOW? The Land Use Element of the General Plan is in conflict with the Circulation Element (traffic flow) of this -Plan? Allowable development creates a need for roadways beyond what is specified. One very critical example is Coast Hwy. between MacArthur and Dover. The General Plan specifies a maximum of •3 thru lanes each way on Coast Hwy.' To accommodate projected developments now, Coast Hwy* r will need to be either J thru lanes each wayy (does not include turn- ing lanes) or 4 thru lanes each way plus a 4-lane extension of Back Bay Drive (with 2 traffic signals added to the system).. DO YOU BELIEVE? The General Plan should be amended to correct this situation? That noise, visual, and air pollution are factors notbeing' given enough consideration in expanded road plans? PL ASE INDICATE FURTHER OPINIONS ON THE .ALSO WRITE TO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING Tour of sites in question being planned BACK. THEY ARE VALUABLE! COMMISSION - 3300 Newport Blvd. NB 9266q - please call if interested 673-8164 COMMISSIONERS, City of Newport Beach MINUTES s°y November 18, 1976 ROLL CAL IN OEX That a joint parking agreement be approved the City Council if the proposed use is to be prior to 5:00 P.M. Said agreement shall prove or a minimum of 10 parking spaces for employ 6. There shall be a maximum of t non -illumin- ated identification signs not to ex 3' X 16' each. Item #4 The Status and Implementation of the Circulation CIRCULA- Element of the General Plan. TION ELEMENT The purpose of this discussion was to bring the Commission up-to-date as to the status and imple- mentation of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Traffic Engineer Darnell commented on the various studies which have been made in the past and use of the basic data to establish the Circulation Element. He reviewed maps showing the adopted Circulation Element, projections of 1990-1995 traffic volumes, and traffic volumes which existe in 1974. He reviewed the definitions of the various levels of service using examples of existing traffic situations throughout the City and advised of a pending computer simulation model program which will ultimately be used in the determination of land use, as well as a project's effect on traffic as a result of increased trip generation. City Engineer Nolan commented on the implementa- tion, planning and funding of the various current and short-range, mid -range and long-range program within the City and reviewed the portions of the arterial highway system within - the City of Newport Beach which have not been completed to their ultimate configuration. He also commented on the City's policies with respect to the responsibili- ties of developers in providing for street and highway construction. He advised that the review and permit process which now exists had increased the amount of lead time required prior to any highway construction, including the EIS process, Page 11. COMMISSIONERS v s o T ti ti s Soy Cit of Newport Beach November 18, 1976 MINUTES MOLL CALL INDEX and was time consuming because of today's environmental concerns and the many agencies involved in the review process. Following the presentation, Planning Commission briefly discussed traffic and circulation problems both within the City and the surrounding areas. There being no further business, Planning Commis- sion adjourned the meeting. Time: 9:40 P.M. WILLI•AM AGEE, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 12. RECEIVED Comn,amty Devel'pinent Dept JUN �g1y75� tv _WPOA BEACH / 00 NOT REMOVE COUNCILMEN \'\A00\\\\107\At\ (MY OF NEWPORT BEACH r MINUTES o7�oT yZo2maop ROLL CALL a T 1 N 2 a m April 14, 1975 INDEX surfacing, Irvine Avenue from Westcliff Drive to Santiago Drive, Contract No. 1694. (A report from the ' Works Director was presented.) Resolution No. 84 ing a contract to Lewis Bicycle Paving, Inc. for improvemen onnection with a Trails bicycle trail, Coast Highway from Ne oulevard to R-8467 Riverside Avenue, Contract No. 1695. (A repor the Public Works Director was presented.) Resolution No. 8468 approving the 1995 Functional General Classification Study Maps for the City as being in Plan substantial conformance with the Circulation Element R-8468 of the General Plan. (A report from the Public Works Director was presented.) Resolution No. 8469 declaring that weeds and other Weed public nuisances exist upon streets, alleys, side- Abatement walks, parkways, and private property within the City, R-8469 declaring that said weeds and public nuisances must be abated, setting the time and place for a public hearing at which the City Council will consider pro- tests from persons objecting to the proposed destruc- tion or removal of such public nuisances by the City, and directing the Fire Chief to give notice of the passage of this resolution and of the public hearing. OrCo Mgmt Resolution No. 8470 requesting management audit infor- Audit Sery mation from Orange County. R-8470 Resolution No. 8471 supporting the'Bridge Action BAT '76 am '76 (BAT '76). R-8471 Reso tion No. 8472 reaffirming various standing and Council ad hoc ity Council committees; establishing and/or Cmtes deleting ending and ad hoc committees; and repealing R-8472 Resolution . 8421; to add the establishment of the ad hoc Offsho Mooring Fees Committee. Resolution No. 84 authorizing the Mayor and City OrCo Clerk to execute a J nt Powers Agreement between the Airport City of Newport Beach d the County of Orange in R-8473 connection with Street S eping Services at Orange County Airport; increasing a rate per curb mile to $3.31. Resolution No.-8474 of the City Co cil of the City of Computer Newport Beach authorizing the City ager to enter Service into agreements to provide computer se ice. (A Agreements report from the City Manager was present e .) R-8474 2. The following communications were referred as n- dicated: — Referred to Planning Commission for inclusion in Corporate study, letter addressed to Mayor McInnis from Val Plaza Skoro in connection with traffic problems surrounding the proposed Corporate Plaza development by The Irvine Company. Volume 29 - Page 75 p o g=E cr% V DO WOT REMOVE i'3. 13 4L • RECEIVED — 6 + community Dev mont Dept j� cVV Or- r-j APR 101975� 9 April 14, 1975 F I LIZ C© r Z NEWP BEACH. lO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DO 'NOT REMOVE l r �� ITEM NO. H-2 (e) w TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: 1995 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIOR STUDY - CONFORMANCE WITH CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving the 1995 Functional Classification Study Maps for Newport Beach as being in substantial conformance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. DISCUSSION: In 1970'the City participated in a revision of the National Highway Functional Classification Study that was completed in 1968. This revision defined a projected 1990 National Highway Functional Classifica- tion Road System. In 1973the City was asked by Caltrans to update and further project the study from 1990 to 1995 as a step in complying with Chapter 1253, Statutes of 1972 (AB 69) for the development of the highway element of the California Transportation Plan. This 1995 Functional Classifica- tion Study will provide the Federal Department of Transportation with facts needed to make congressional recommendations on specific changes to the nature and size of Federal -aid systems and programs. The study will also provide the State of California Legislature with facts needed to make an objective evaluation of criteria for future highway, road and street systems and programs. In preparing the revisions to the functional .Classification System, staff made every effort to seek consistency with the City's Circulation Element and with the Select System of Streets. (The study includes both arterial and collector streets.) Five discrepancies on arterial streets now exist between the adopted Circulation Element and the Functional Classification Study. These discrepancies are listed below and shown on the attached sketch. , I. Routes.included in the State Functional Classification A. Newport Freeway from 17th Street to West Coast Highway. B. Corona del Mar Freeway from University Drive to East Coast Highway. C. Coast Freeway from the westerly City limits to the easterly City limits. ' A -A Street from West Coast Highway to 17th Street. April 14, 1975 Subject: 1995 Functional Classification Study - Conformance with Circulation Element of the General Plan Page 2 1[MORO, onal Classi A. Newport Freeway connecting road from 17th Street to Newport Boulevard. The proposed resolution approves the 1995 Functional Classifica- tion Study subject to the exclusions of the discrepancies noted above. The Functional Classification Study Maps will be on display in the Council Chambers. oseph kT. Devlin ublic ks Director B:hh Attachment I c , NEWPORT REACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN OF L, �_ STREETS & HIGHWAYS I ® MAJOR ROAD 0 INTERCHANGE SIX LANE DIVIDED PRIMARY ROAD m ADOPTED FREEWAYFOUR LANE DIVIDED ROUTES PRIMARY ROAD ,= BRIDGE J/ MODIFIED " 771 SECONDARY ROAD Y FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED Q ROUTES THAT REQUIRE FURTHER COORDINATION /" •tnll lilll il{I7l llii3���� F c L r_ � C E /?. N ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCL MARCH 11,1974 ig •1 — I I scale'm;� in feet I3' /Z COUNCILMEN � a m I nn, 1 nil CITY OF NE' PORT T„ 1,. 9 9 1 074 BEACH FILE COPY MINUTES INDEX A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. Letters from Ruth K. Johnson and McKee Thompson in favor of subject Variance were presented. Letters were received after the agenda was printed from Mr. and Mrs. John Drabeck, Charles W. and Dee Dee Masters, B. H. Renard, Wilhelmina Li'. Os, Mr. and Mrs. Ted Russell and Gerald and Ka leen Thompson approving Variance No. 1042, and a let r from Harwood & Adkinson to Lhe Community Develo ent Director enclosing a letter to them from Richard Dodd requesting Council to allow the variance wit • the exception of permitting the violation of the height o inance. Don Adkinson, atto eyfor Richard Dodd, addressed the Council. Gordon Glass, architect, p esented a petition signed by nineteen China Cove resid tpproving the re- quested variance. Motion x Mr. Glass was granted two additional minutes for his Ayes x x x x x x x presentation., Milo V. Olson, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Thomson, and John Gay addressed the CounciNn favor of the proposed variance. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Motion x The decision of the Planning Commission was upheld,`"'ti Ayes x x x x x x x and Variance No. 1042 was granted. 3. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding Gen Plan proposed General Plan Amendment No. 4, being an Amendmt amendment to the Circulation Element to change the No. 4 classification of Irvine Avenue between 16th Street and Cliff Drive from a primary road to a local street, and to delete the intersection at Irvine and Pacific Coast Highway. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department in connection with proposed Amend- ment Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8. Donna Gallant, President of the Cliff Haven Community Association, addressed the Council in support of the proposed amendment. Volume 28 - Page 180 COUNCILMEN � o m CITY OF NEWPORT BE• H MINUTES o � y TOLL CALL AN T9f N12 mo �Am July 22, 1974 INDEX Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Motion x Resolution No. 8314, adopting an amendment to the R-8314 Ayes X x X x x x Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Noes x Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 4), was adopted. 4. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding Gen Plan _ proposed General Plan Amendment No. 5, being an Amend t amendment to the Circulation Element to change the No. 5 classification of 15th Street between Superior Avenue j and Balboa Boulevard from a primary road to a secondary road. f A letter was received after the agenda was printed from Beeco, Ltd. opposing the Planning Commission recommendations. John Haskell, representing Beeco, Ltd.,ddressed the Council in opposition to the proposse5 amendment. Motion x The hearing was closed. / Ayes xxxxxxx / Resolution No. 8315, adoptinX; amendment to the R-8315 Motion x Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Ayesxxxxxxx Plan (General Plan Amen ment No. 5), was adopted. 5. Mayor McInnis open the public hearing regarding Gen Plan proposed General an Amendment No. 6 being an Amendmt amendment to tl!he Residential Growth Element and No. 6 Land Use Eler}tent to change the designated use of the property commonly known as the "Fun Zone" at the intersecti n of Palm Street and Bay Avenue on the Balboa from multi -family residential to 10eninsula retai and service commercial. D Adkinson addressed the Council in opposition to /ihe proposed amendment. i John Konwiser addressed the Council in support of the proposed amendment. Motion x The hearing was closed. Ayes xxxxxxx Resolution No. 8316, adopting an amendment to the R-8316 Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Motion/ x Newport Beach General Plan (General P1anAmendment Ayes •' xxxxxxx No. 6), was adopted. Volume 28 - Page 181 • • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1) j NO. 4) WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Circulation Element of the General Plan, on March 11, 1974; and WHEREAS, Section 65361 of the California Government Code limits the amendment of a General Plan to a maximum of three times in any calendar year; and WHEREAS, Council Policy Q1, adopted April 22, 1974, provides for three amendments to the General.Plan per year, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed General Plan Amendment No,. 4 on June 20, 1974; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that such amendment is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that General Plan Amendment No. 4 be adopted, amending the Circulation Element as follows: 1. 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. Delete Irvine Avenue from the Priority "D" projects on Table 4 on Page 27 of the Circulation Element Report. ADOPTED.this day of , 1974. 8 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DRB/bc 7/15/74 5101 Saco(ao� 19 75 �e.e�..��v ���cvY�.�-wry �r✓r�-�.o�J of D RS �EynndY eve g15�, JUNK, NAP c l v: DO 'NOT REMOVE " . ALAN M. VOORHEES at ASSOCIATES, INC. 11 April 1974 Mr. Ben Nolen City Engineer City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Ben: On Wednesday April 10, we discussed by telephone the present and future status of 15th Street in the West Newport area. There appears to be a question whether this should be designated as a primary or secondary roadway. The recommended circulation element of the General Plan designates 15th Street as a primary roadway. To my recollection, this came about as a result of discussion with Bob Jaffe when alternatives in West Newport were being considered. Our most recent traffic pro- jections for the Newport Beach Network shows that 15th Street .may have an ADT of approximately-14, 000. This would -depend on the land use being developed as now planned, and the road system which _ = develops with -the -land -to connect with.tre:General Plan -streets. .For - .instance, should Superior Avenue not connect to Coast Highway as has often been discussed, then 15th Street would carry this additional traffic, and likely require primary road status. An alternative to developing a primary roadway section is to develop 15th Street as a secondary roadway with close control of where drive- ways and street intersections are placed. This would create a minimum of side friction and permit traffic to flow smoothly. With adequate provision for off-street parking, on -street parking could be prohibited when the secondary roadway is constructed, which would permit a two-way left turn lane to be installed with left turn pockets at inter-' sections. The roadway cross section and striping configuration would be like Campus Drive. The capacity of a roadway with that configura- tion is approximately 22, 000. In summary, I would say that 15th Street could be developed as a secondary roadway if Superior Avenue continues to intersect with Coast Highway. If superior Avenue is terminated before reaching Coast Highway, then 15th Street may be developed as a secondary roadway t �67SLir CSFV 00 'NOT REMOVE Mr. Ben Nolen City of Newport Beach 11 April 1974 Page 2 with a two-way left turn lane, which would necessitate prohibition of parking. • Before making this decision, the major and 'minor road system for this area should be reviewed to ensure that these roadways will provide adequate capacity. If you have any questions regarding this or other matters, please call me. Very truly yours, A. H.Krier Regional Manager r F rI 13.13 March 11, 1974 City Council Meeting March 11, 1974 Item No. D-1 (Supplemental Info.) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Community Development Department SUBJ:-' Supplemental Report on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. At the Adjourned Council Meeting on February 28, 1974, the staff forwarded to the City Council a letter from the Orange County Road Department dated February 28, 1974 regarding the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In their letter, the Road Department listed 12 revisions to the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways that they felt required further coordination. On March 7, 1974 representatives of the staff, Rod Gunn, Advance Planning Administrator and Ben Nolan, City Engineer, met with representatives of the Orange County Road Department to further clarify what future actions would be necessary. It was the consensus of those present that after adoption of the Circulation Element by the City Council, that two additional meetings would be required to coordinate possible revisions to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The subject of the first meeting would be those revisions that are a specific concern to only the Orange County Road Department. The second meeting would be between the City of Newport Beach, City of Costa Mesa and the Orange County Road Department to discuss those revisions to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways that would affect the City of Costa Mesa. In addition, the staffs of both the Road Department and the City felt that in the West Newport Beach area, more precise engineering analysis was needed. Although the Circulation Element shows general alignments for the relocation of Coast Highway, the extension of Balboa Boulevard, extension of Superior Avenue to Coast Highway and the extension of 15th Street to Coast Highway, there remain several technical questions that need to be resolved prior to implementation of the plan. Due to the fact that some of this area, at the present time, is unincorporated, the Road Department indicated that there was a possibility that they would financially participate in such a study. L E CUPY DO NOT REMOVE r 0 0 TO: City Council - 2 The Road Department also indicated that old MacArthur, Bison Avenue and Avocado Avenue would be included as part of the cooperative Corona del Mar freeway route study. Therefore, the Road Department suggested that Bison Avenue be shown with dots on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a route that requires further coordination. RECOMMENDATIONS Direct staff to meet with Orange County Road Department and City of Costa Mesa regarding coordination of Master Plan elements. 2. Direct staff to return at a later date with recommendations regarding a specific road alignment plan for West Newport. Respectfully submitted, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOi Advance RLG:jmb City Council Meeting March 11, 1974 Agenda Item No. D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 6, 1974 FILE COPY TO: City Council DO NOT REMOVE FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJ: Public Hearing on adoption of the Circulation Element of v The City Council initially scheduled a public hearing on this item for the Adjourned Meeting on February 28, 1974. However., due to an unfortunate clerical error, the public hearing was not properly noticed as required.by law. Therefore, the City Council rescheduled the public hearing for March 11, 1974. Testimony was taken at the February 28, 1974 public meeting for the purpose of fact finding and a transcript of this testimony will be introduced and become a part of the official proceedings of the public hearing on this matter. Attached is the Environmental Impact Report (74-046) for the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Environ- mental Affairs Committee reviewed this Environmental Impact Report on Wednesday, March 6, 1974 and the Planning Commission will consider the E.I.R. at their meeting on March 7, 1974. The staff will orally present the Commission's comments at the Council meeting. In addition, the City Council, at the public meeting on February 28, 1974, requested the staff to report back on the signalization at Coast Highway and the entrance to Promontory Point. In a separate memo, the Public Works Director has commented on this matter. It was also suggested at the February 28, 1974 public meeting that the word "interchange" was an inappropriate term to be contained within the Circulation Element. The Public Works Director has suggested that the term "separate crossing" be substituted for the word "interchange" wherever it appears in the Element. Action Hold hearing, close hearing; if desired, (a) adopt Resolution No. adopting the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and accepting EIR/NB 74-046; or (b) modify the Agenda Item No. D-1 0 Circulation Element of the General Plan and refer it back to the Planning Respectfully COMMUNITY DE R. V. HOGAN, By C Rc Advance P RLG:jmb Att. EIR/NB CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA EIR/NB 74-046 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN. I, This E.I.R. has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the C.E.Q.A. and the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. It is the intent of this report to explore and evaluate the signifi- cant city-wide environmental impacts of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Circulation Element provides a long-range guide to the provision of circulation routes and facilities within the City of Newport Beach. It is intended that this Circulation Element satisfy the State requirement that local General Plans contain a Circulation Element (Section 65300 of the Government Code). II. SCOPE OF REPORT This "project" is not a development project in the normal sense, but rather a long-range plan for circulation routes and facilities. As such, there will be no immediate effect on the physical environment of the City. Therefore, this E.I.R. discusses the probable long-term environmental impacts resulting from the adoption and implementation of this Element. Individual projects proposed within the context of this Element will be subject to detailed environmental review under the requirements of the C.E.Q.A. and the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. III. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Newport Beach is blessed with,a unique geographical 'setting, located on the Pacific Ocean and containing Newport Bay, which results in a great demand for transportation to, and circulation within, the City. This unique geographical setting also creates unique circulation problems in terms of travel desires and physical constraints. -1- The area's cultural activities, financial activities, commercial activities, industrial activities, civic activities, and recrea- 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. IV, CIRCULATION OBJECTIVES The proposals contained in the Circulation Element are based on the General Plan Policy report adopted by the City Council on March 13, 1972. Following are the policies relating to the Circulation Element excerpted from the General Plan Policy report: GENERAL OBJECTIVE It is the objective of the City of Newport Beach to ensure the orderly development of those facilities which promote the safe, attractive, convenience, and economical movement of people and goods within the Newport Beach area; to ensure the development of all such facilities in a manner which will minimize any detri- mental effects upon the environmental quality of the City; and to assist in the development of a total circulation system to serve the present and future needs of the Orange County region. SUPPORTING POLICIES a) The local transportation system shall serve as an Integral part of the broader regional transportation network, including a balance between various alternate modes of transportation such as highways, mass transit, air and water facilities, that will coordinate local and regional transportation needs and the needs of various age and socio-economic groups. b) The City shall continue the active investigation of all planned local and regional transportation systems to determine the impact of each on the community, and to ensure that all such facilities serve to protect and maintain the sociological, ecological, economic and aesthetic environment of the Newport Beach area. -2- r 1 c) Freeways, in particular, shall not bisect or isolate individual communities, neighborhoods, business areas, parks or other homogeneous areas within the City, and shall be designed in such d manner as to protect and enhance any adjacent land uses. 1. Consistent with the objective and policies to preserve the environmental quality of the community, the City shall continue to oppose the development of the Route 1 (Pacific Coast) Freeway within the coastal corridor of Newport Beach. 2. The City shall promote the future routing of the Corona del Mar Freeway to an alignment which would be northerly from its present planned route through Corona del Mar. As one alterna- tive, the City should consider a possible align- ment of the freeway to a location near or adjacent to Bonita Canyon - Coyote Canyon Road. d) Recognizing the vital relationship which exists between the street and highway network and the use of land, the City shall limit and control the distribution, character and intensity of all land uses which would generate increased levels of traffic beyond the capacity of the existing or planned street system. e) Every attempt should be made to subordinate the automobile in older high -density areas. Alternate means of transportation should be fully explored. f) In view of increasing demands and the economic pressures to expand air transportation services in the Orange County region, the City shall actively encourage and participate in the planning and development of a regional airport facility at a location which will be least detrimental to surrounding residents and adjacent land uses. The new facilities should be developed for occupancy by 1977 - the date on which specific air facility leases may be -3- considered for termination or renewal. g) The present location of the Orange County Airport is unacceptable as a site for a regional airport facility and should therefore be restricted to its ultimate function as a local airport, confined to the use of non -jet commercial carriers capable of short take -offs and landings and small privately operated non -jet business and pleasure type aircraft. h) The City shall also promote and assist in the development of adequate regulations and controls to reduce the present levels of noise, pollution and other hazards associated with the operations of the Orange County Airport and ensure that such regulations and controls are developed and maintained as a standard that is found to be acceptable to the City of Newport Beach. i) Facilities and landing areas for any helicopter or other short landing and takeoff aircraft within the City shall be limi.ted as to their extent, location and character of operation to protect against any adverse effect on the character or environmental quality of the community. j) The City shall encourage and assist in the planning and development of a regional mass transit system with other appropriate agencies, where such system may best serve to reduce the rising demand for adequate and efficient trans- portation facilities. k) Any mass transit system and the various local support facilities, shall each be designed and operated so as to protect and enhance the physical, social, and ecological environment of the Newport Beach area. 1) The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate regulations to assure the provision of sufficient off- street parking with all new developments and encourage joint public -private efforts to improve parking conditions in existing developed areas. -4- r� • • m) The City shall ensure -the provision of adequate side- walks and other pedestrian ways and initiate the development of a safe and attractive bicycle trail system throughout the City. n) The City shall encourage the_use of a small boat system for sight-seeing passengers in and around the bay. The system shall be designed in such a way as to protect existing residents and uses which front on the bay. o) The City shall encourage the maintenance of the existing ferry system between Balboa Island and the peninsula. V. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Circulation Element proposes a city-wide network of streets and highways and places the major emphasis on the Use of the private automobile for transportation to, and circulation within, the City. This is done based on today's knowledge of individual desires and today's technology. Subsequent revisions to this Element will include proposals for public transit in order to reduce dependence on the automobile; however, it is apparent that the private automobile will continue to be the predominant mode of transportation within the foreseeable future. The emphasis on automobile transportation will result in certain adverse environmental impacts, including: 1. Air Pollution - The Orange County Air Pollution Control Board has indicated that motor vehicles are responsible for 98 percent of all air pollutants. 2. Water Pollution - Motor vehicles result in the deposit of oils, fuels, and tire rubber on streets which are then washed into the bay and ocean. These pollutants are detrimental to marine life and the aesthetics of the water areas. 3. Noise - Motor vehicles are a major contributor to noise pollution. (This problem will be discussed in detail in the Noise Element of the General Plan.) -5- 4. Use of Land - The construction of streets, highways, and parking lots results in much of the City's land area being paved over, which could have adverse effects in terms of removing valuable flora and fauna resources, limiting water penetration, and increasing water runoff and possibly erosion. VI. ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED None of the above adverse effects can be totally avoided if this Element is adopted and implemented. However, these adverse effects can be somewhat mitigated, as discussed below. VII. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT 1. The City of Newport Beach will process an amendment to the Circulation Element in the near future which will include proposals to provide public transit and discourage total dependence on the private automobile. 2. Each street.and highway project will be closely scrutinized to assure that all adverse effects will be minimized. VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION One alternative is simply not to adopt a Circulation Element. This would be in violation of the State Government Code which requires cities to adopt a Circulation Element. A second alternative would be to adopt a Circulation Element which does not include proposals for upgrading streets and highways. While this may discourage use of automobiles, it would also result in mass congestion. This congestion would cause adverse environmental effects and would be unacceptable in social and economic terms. IX. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The Circulation Element is a long-range guide for the provision of circulation routes and facilities. 10 • • X. ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION, SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The construction of street segments and other facilities will result in irreversible environmental changes within the public rights -of -way indicated on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. These changes include: 1. Destruction of flora, 2. Grading of surface, and 3. Cohstruction.and paving. XI. THE GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The adoption and implementation of this Element will have no growth -inducing impact, but will serve the transportation needs resulting from the City's growth. XII. SUMMARY The adoption and implementation of the Circulation Element will result in certain unavoidable adverse environmental effects. However, these adverse environmental effects must be balanced against social and economic factors. It should be stressed that any individual projects proposed within the context of this Element will be subject to detailed environmental review as required by the C.E.Q.A. and the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. -7- COUNCILMEN CIP OF NEWPORT BICH \ REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING pt v o Place: Council Chambers Zcpo w No Time: 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL T mPN N 9c mm Date: March 11, 1974 MI TES INDEX Present Motion Ayes Motion Ayes x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Roll ,Call. -Tbe reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Febru 25 and of the Adjourned Meeting of February 28, 1974 was wai the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 25 were a owed as written, the Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of Feb r 28 were approved as amended, and said Minutes were Bred filed. The reading in full of all ordinances and re sos under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was dir ed to read by titles only. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding General adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport. Plan/ Beach General Plan; review of the Newport Beach Circulati Traffic Stud Phase III, and acceptance of Environ- Element mental Impact Report E_IR/NB. 73=045. A report was presented from the Community Develop- ment Department. The official transcript of the February 28, 1974, adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach was presented. The transcript of the February 28 Minutes was Motion x declared part of the official proceedings of the public Ayes x x x x x x x hearing. Letters were received after the agenda was printed from the following: Arvo Haapa asking that his name be removed from both petitions circulated by Chris Hopper and Richard Strickler; Harbor View Hills Community Association reaffirming their opposition to a Fifth Avenue bypass and presenting their oppo- sition to the Orange County Transit District's inclusior. of Fifth Avenue in mass transit plans; Spencer Crump endorsing the Fifth Avenue bypass; and a petition bearing sixteen signatures of Corona del Mar business- men opposing the interchange at MacArthur and Coast Highway, urging completion of Bonita Canyon before consideration of Fifth Avenue bypass, urging no changes to Coast Highway parking, and stating they have authorized no one to be their spokesman. Mayor McInnis asked if anyone desired to be heard. Brent Muchow, Director of Public Works for the City of Irvine, addressed the Council and expressed the Volume 28 - Page 70 AIL NE Co :)n I DO NOT REMOVE COUNCILMEN P�'F�p3n pa 3p ?i n'� ZZpO �A O mCu �Gv.P_ CA OF NEWPORT BETCH MINUTES HULL GALL Vp N c c• March 11 1y/4 City of Irvine's willingness to cooperate and work with the City of Newport Beach in connection with the Bonita Canyon corridor. The following persons addressed the Council ex- pressing their concern or opposition to various aspects of the Circulation Element; namely, the proposed Fifth Avenue bypass route, deletion of parking on the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, the interchange at MacArthur and Coast Highway, the proposed Bonita Canyon corridor bypass, the pro- posed University Avenue widening and a second bay bridge: Susan Robison representing the Student - Faculty Organization at Harbor View Elementary School, Esther Tabak, Caroline Clucas, Calvin S. McLaughlin, Alan Tracy, Roy Giordano, Rod Calder - head, Jerry Hill, Wallace Calderhead, Mary Pleger, Dr. Richard Nichols, Helen M. Karen, Frank Jordan, Lyn Geronimi, Gerard Van Hoven, Normal Wein- berger, J. R. Blakemore and Alan Schwalbe. Motion x Mr. McLaughlin was granted eight minutes for his Ayes x x x x x x x presentation. Al Krier, Regional Manager for the Transportation Planning Firm of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, and Bill Agee, Chairman of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, answered questions presented by the Council. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined that Ayes x x x x x x x no one else desired to be heard. The Environmental Impact Report EIR./NB 74-046 Motion Ayes x x x x x x x (73-045) was accepted; and Resolution No. 8206, adopting the Circulation Element of the Newport Noes x Beach General Plan, was adopted, with amendments deleting the interchange at Coast Highway and Mac- Arthur and deleting any reference to the elimination of parking on the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Motion x The Planning Commission was directed to consider Ayes x x x x x x x an amendment to the Circulation Element to change Bison Avenue from a primary to a secondary street. Motion x The Planning Commission was directed to consider Ayes x x x x x x x amendments to the Circulation Element to delete the widening of Irvine Avenue between 16th Street and Cliff Drive and to delete the interchange at Irvine Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. Volume 28 - Page 71 INDEX J COUNCILMEN 14 (05C\1_\-Pr?o \V103 ROLL CALL T CIY OF NEWPORT BETCH March 11. 1974 MINUTES INDEX Motion Ayes x x x x x x x x The Planning Commission was directed to consider an amendment to the Circulation Element to make pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities part of the construction in Area 3. 2. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing in connection South with the appeal of William E. Blurock, South Coast Coast Shipyard and Design Center, objecting to Condition Ship rd No. 4 regarding additional public access imposed by App al the Planning Commission on Resubdivision No. 421, which creates one parcel of land for development at 2220 Newport Boulevard on the east side of Newport eet on the Balboa Penin- Boulevard, north of 22/aa sula, zoned C-1 and C- A report from the Comty Development De rt- ment was presented wiappeal applicatio and letter from William E.ock. Robert Bein addressedouncil and a ed if this matter could be considlater in the eeting after the applicant had arriv Motion x The matter was continutil lat r in the evening.Ayes xxxxxxx 3. Mayor McInnis openedu is hearing regarding Harbor amendment to the Harbw Hills Planned Com- View Hills munity Development Stds, Planning Commission PC Amendment No. 361, tuce the permitted densityin Areas 8 and 13, to t general updating of the statistics as they per ain to the developed residential area, to revise the ign standards in Areas 8 and 13, and to revise the andards as they pertain to the height and locat' n of fences in Areas 9, 10, 11 and 12, located so h of Ford Road and east of MacArthur Boulevard in arbor View Hills, zoned P-C. A report as presented from the Community Develop- ment D artment. Motion x The earing was closed after it was determined that Ayes x x x x x x x no ne desired to be heard. esolution No. 8207, amending the Planned Com- R-8207 Motion x munity District Regulations for "Harbor View Hills" Ayes xxxxxxx (Planning Amendment 361), was adopted. 4. Mayor McInnis opened the public hearing regarding Koll Center amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Com- Newport munity Development Plan, Planning Commission PC Amendment No. 420, to permit general changes in the Land Use Map and Text, located in Tract 7953, Volume 28 - Page 72 13 is Planning,Commission Meeting March 7, 1974 Agenda Item No. (Additional Business)_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 1, 1974 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJ: EIR/NB 74-046 Environmental Impact Report for the Circulation Element of the NeWport Beach General Plan. Staff would suggest that this item be considered at this meeting under "Additional Business". On January 10,'1974, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 873 (which was amended on February 7, 1974), recommending that the City Council adopt the Circulation Element. This resolution was adopted subject to the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report on the Circulation Element. This E.I.R. is attached for your review. The Environmental Affairs Committee will review this E.I.k. on Wednesday, March 6, 1974, and their comments will be presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By a Rodney L. Gunn Advance Planning Administrator RLG:jmb Att.: EIR/NB 74-046 Environmental Impact Report for the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. DO SNOT REMOVE 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA EIR/NB 74-046 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CIRCULATI"ON ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN. I, This E.I.R. has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the C.E.Q.A. and the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. It is the intent of this report to explore and evaluate the signifi- cant city-wide environmental impacts of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Circulation Element provides a long-range guide to the provision of circulation routes and facilities within the City of Newport Beach. It is intended that this Circulation Element satisfy the State requirement that local General Plans contain a Circulation Element (Section 65300 of the Government Code). II, SCOPE OF REPORT This "project" is not a development project in the normal sense, but rather a long-range plan for circulation routes and facilities. As such, there will be no immediate effect on the physical environment of the City. Therefore, this E.I.R. discusses the probable long-term environmental impacts resulting from the adoption and implementation of this Element. Individual projects proposed within the context of this Element will be subject to detailed environmental review under the requirements of the C.E.Q.A, and the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. III. DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Newport Beach is blessed with -a unique geographical setting, located on the Pacific Ocean and containing Newport Bay, which results in a great demand for transportation to, and circulation within, the City. This unique geographical setting also creates unique circulation problems in terms of travel desires and physical constraints. -1- w The area's cultural activities, financial activities, commercial activities, industrial activities, civic activities, and recrea- 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. IV. CIRCULATION OBJECTIVES The proposals contained in the Circulation Element are based on the General Plan Policy report adopted by the City Council on March 13, 1972. Following are the policies relating to the Circulation Element excerpted from the General Plan Policy report: GENERAL OBJECTIVE It is the objective of the City of Newport Beach to ensure the orderly development of those facilities which promote the safe, attractive, convenience, and economical movement of people and goods within the Newport Beach area; to ensure the development of all such facilities in a manner which will minimize any detri- mental effects upon the environmental quality of the City; and to assist in the development of a total circulation system to serve the present and future needs of the Orange County region. SUPPORTING POLICIES a) The local transportation system shall serve as an integral part of the broader regional transportation network, including a balance between various alternate modes of transportation such as highways, mass transit, air and water facilities, that will coordinate local and regional transportation needs and the needs of various age and socio-economic groups. b) The City shall continue the active investigation of all planned local and regional transportation systems to determine the impact of each on the community, and to ensure that all such facilities serve to protect and maintain the sociological, ecological, economic and aesthetic environment of the Newport Beach area. -2- v 0 c) Freeways, in particular, shall not bisect or isolate individual communities, neighborhoods, business areas, parks or other homogeneous areas within the City, and shall be designed in 'such a manner as to protect and enhance any adjacent land uses. 1. Consistent with the objective and policies to preserve the environmental quality of the community, the City shall continue to oppose the development of the Route 1 (Pacific Coast) Freeway within the coastal corridor of Newport Beach. 2. The City shall promote the future routing of the Corona del Mar Freeway to an alignment which would be northerly from its present planned route through Corona del Mar. As one alterna- tive, the City should consider a possible align- ment of the freeway to a location near or adjacent to Bonita Canyon - Coyote Canyon Road. d) Recognizing the vital relationship which exists between the street and highway network and the use of land, the City shall limit and control the distribution, character and intensity of all land uses which would generate increased levels of traffic beyond the capacity of the existing or planned street system. e) Every attempt should be made to subordinate the automobile in older high -density areas. Alternate means of transportation should be fully explored. f) In view of increasing demands and the economic pressures to expand air transportation services in the Orange County region, the City shall actively encourage and participate in the planning and development of a regional airport facility at a location which will be least detrimental to surrounding residents and adjacent land uses. The new facilities should be developed for occupancy by 1977 - the date on which specific air facility leases may be -3- considered for termination or renewal. g) The present location of the Orange County Airport is unacceptable as a site for a regional airport facility and should therefore be restricted to its ultimate function as a local airport, confined to the use of non -jet commercial carriers capable of short take -offs and landings and small privately operated non -jet bUsihess and pleasure type aircraft. h) The City shall also promote and assist in the development of adequate regulations and controls to reduce the present levels of noise, pollution and other hazards associated with the operations of the Orange County Airport and ensure that such regulations and controls are developed and maintained as a standard that is found to be acceptable to the City of Newport Beach. i) Facilities and landing areas for any helicopter or other short landing and takeoff aircraft within the City shall be limited as to their extent, location and character of operation to protect against any adverse effect on the character or environmental quality of the community. j) The City shall encourage and assist in the planning and development of a regional mass transit system with other appropriate agencies, where such system may best serve to reduce the rising demand for adequate and efficient trans- portation facilities. k) Any mass transit system and the various local support facilities, shall each be designed and operated so as to protect and enhance the physical, social, and ecological environment of the Newport Beach area. 1) The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate regulations to assure the provision of sufficient off- street parking with all new developments and encourage joint public -private efforts to improve parking conditions in existing developed areas. - 4- m) The City shall ensure the provision of adequate side- walks and other pedestrian ways and initiate the development of a safe and attractive bicycle trail system throughout the City. n) The City shall encourage the -use of a small boat system for sight-seeing passengers in and around the bay. The system shall be designed in such a way as to protect existing residents and uses which front on the bay. o) The City shall encourage the maintenance of the existing ferry system between Balboa Island and the peninsula. V. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Circulation Element proposes a city-wide network of streets and highways and places the major emphasis on the use of the private automobile for transportation to, and circulation within, the City. This is done based on today's knowledge of individual desires and today's technology. Subsequent revisions to this Element will include proposals for public transit in order to reduce dependence on the automobile; however, it is apparent that the private automobile will continue to be the predominant mode of transportation within the foreseeable future. The emphasis on automobile transportation will result in certain adverse environmental impacts, including: 1. Air Pollution - The Orange County Air Pollution Control Board has indicated that motor vehicles are responsible for 98 percent of all air pollutants. 2. Water Pollution - Motor vehicles result in the deposit of oils, fuels, and tire rubber on streets which are then washed into the bay and ocean. These pollutants are detrimental to marine life and the aesthetics of the water areas. 3. Noise - Motor vehicles are a major contributor to noise pollution. (This problem will be discussed in detail in the Noise Element,of the General Plan.) -5- 4. Use of Land - The construction of streets, highways, and parking lots results in much of the City's Land area being paved over, which could have adverse effects in terms of removing valuable flora and fauna resources, limiting water penetration, and increasing water runoff and possibly erosion. VI. ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED I,F THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED None of the above adverse effects can be totally avoided if this Element is adopted and implemented. However, these adverse effects can be somewhat mitigated, as discussed below. VII. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT 1. The City of Newport Beach will process an amendment to the Circulation Element in the near future which will include proposals to provide public transit and discourage total dependence on the private automobile. 2. Each street and highway project will be closely scrutinized to assure that all adverse effects will be minimized. VIII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION One alternative is simply not to adopt a Circulation Element. This would be in violation of the State Government Code which requires cities to adopt a Circulation Element. A second alternative would be to adopt a Circulation Element which does not include proposals for upgrading streets and highways. While this may discourage use of automobiles, it would also result in mass congestion. This congestion would cause adverse environmental effects and would be unacceptable in social and economic terms. IX. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The Circulation Element is a long-range guide for the provision of circulation routes and facilities. 0 X. ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION, SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The construction of street segments and other facilities will result in irreversible environmental changes within the public rights -of -way indicated on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. These changes include: 1. Destruction of flora, 2. Grading of surface, and 3. Construction and paving. XI. THE GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The adoption and implementation of this Element will have no growth -inducing impact, but will serve the transportation needs resulting from the City's growth. XII. SUMMARY The adoption and implementation of the Circulation Element will result in certain unavoidable adverse environmental effects. However, these adverse environmental effects must be balanced against social and economic factors. It should be stressed that any individual projects proposed within the context of this Element will be subject to detailed environmental review as required by the C.E.Q.A. and the guidelines of the City of Newport Beach. 0 -7- • s '3.17 WON ."111 i . 328 Poinsettia Avenue •' Corona del Mar, Calif. 92625 City pouncil, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Rewr.ort Boulevard, Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: March 7, 1974 This letter is intended for your hearing on the proposed bypass through Corona del Mar.• V-I I endorse the Fifth Avenue bypass, which is the only obvious means to take traffic off of Coast Highway as it becomes heavier and heavier each year. If there is a question as to community sentiment, I suggest that you have a vote of residents residing south of Fifth Avenue in'Corona del War.- The only oprosition to using Fifth Avenue apparently comes from a vocal group residing in the area on the hill side of Fifth, and these people knew of the proposed routing when they purchased their homes. Numerous persons had petitions oplosing the use of Fifth Avenue, but they very definitely misrepresented what they really sought. All orally said the petitions.sought to route traffic elsewhere, but the petitions very definitely only opposed the Fifth Avenue bypass without offering workable alternatives. I am not a Corona del Mar merchant, but am a homeowner who does not want to see Coat Highway made into a freeway with the increased traffic that is coming with the population growth. /lam Very truly yours, Spencer Crump PUIILISHED THURSDAY ARVO E. HAAPA Publisher I LOCAL NEWS ADVERTISING PRINTING 2721 E. C AST HIGHWAY CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONEe 673.0550 March 6, 1974 D-1 Laura Lagios City Clerk City of Newport Beach Dear Mrs. Lagios, Please remove my signature from both petitions circulated by Mrs. Chris Hopper and Richard L. Strickler opposing removal of parking along Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and favoring a traffic bypass. I agree with the petitionts position opposing any parking ban along Coast Highway, but the reference to a bypass is am- biguous, and is bing interpreted as favoring a bypass along. Fifth Avenue. I'!e6 on record editorially in my newspaper op- posing both the parking ban and the use of Fifth Avenue corri- dor for an expressway or freeway or thoroughfare. Si cerely, ARVO E. HAAPA .� Owner and PublAhher °D of he Official Newspaper of the Chy of Newport Beach A '"t • 0 13. r HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA $n .. ' r• The Honorable Mayor D.A. McInnisi and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: r t'a 1974 o Clif OF It e„-5'T BEACH AGr A new.spaper article ohthe February 28, 1974, Newport Beach City Council session indicates that speakers pro and con 5th Avenue were fairly equal numerically, and implies that the city is likewise divided. It is completely erroneous to infer that the city is evenly divided, or even that the speakers were about e— qually divided numerically. To begin with, representatives of very large groups opposing the 5th Avenue and Corona del Polar Freeways and the MacArthur in terchange in Newport Beach were restricted numerically to save time for the members of the Council and the audience, and in con— sideration of the published request of Mayor McInnis. The repre— sentatives of some groups did not speak at all. For example, the Harbor Area Freeway. Fighters and the Citizens Coordinating Commit— tee and the Newport -Mesa Unified School District Harbor View Parent Faculty Organization representatives did not take up time to state orally their position but relied entirely on the Council being aware of and considering their opposition to the freeways and interchange through their letters. .P/ / Much more importance should be attached to the number of un— affiliated people or the size of groups whose desires have been determined, who were represented by the restricted number of those speaking against the freeway and the interchange. Especially significant in this connection is�-ithe`•assemblage of petitions bearing nearly 5,000 signatures. ,•,' Lys.. In contrast, those favoring the so—called 5tht;Avenue by—pass, in general, were speaking for themselves as individuals. -or for rel— atively small groups which had not been actually canvass,pd: A review of the record shows that Mr. Hogan for the City Staff, the Vorheas representative, the Chairman of the Planning Commission and some 18 others addressed the Council. None„ supported bringing, the Carona del Mar Freeway down along MacArthur:•to-Coast Highway and none supported an interchange at MacArthur. 4 W.l HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITYASSOCIATION CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA As, to the so-called 5th Avenue by-pass, thirteen speakers specifically opposed it. Two opposed 5th Avenue except as an alternative to the prohibition of parking on Coast Highway. One opposed 5th Avenue, but expressed doubt as to the feasibility of additional parking lots, and one proposed retention of the land along 5th Avenue for possible use for a four lane street. Only four speakers of the twenty one appeared clearly to favor the 5th Avenue route. It is not recalled that anyone recommended limitation of parking on Coast Highway except under certain canditibns, and in any event for only one pedk'A.M. and P.M. hour. To assure against possible confusion this organization's ob- jectives are restated as follows. We respectfully request that the City Council: 1. Adopt as City policy that the entrance of the Coruna del Mar Freeway into Newport Beach is unacceptable and that the proper alignment for this road is the route along Bonita and Coyote Canyons. This is as recommended by the Planning Commission and the traffic consultant, A. M. Vorhees and Associates. 2. Adopt Project No. 7 for Coast Highway between MacArthur and Jambailee Road as proposed on page 70 of the Vorhees report, i:e., without an interchange at MacArthur. 3. Adopt proposal No. 0 as recommended by the Planning Commission for Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. Vorhees' Praject No. 8, page 71 of the report, is sub- stantially the same, but does not contain the Planning Commission condition that "Time -controlled on -street parking, if necessary, will be limited to two one -hour peaks and instituted only when adequate off-street park- ing is available." Very trullyy yo�upa, J. R. B1a.kemore tVi.ce-President and Director, Municipal Affairs c: .. a m 13.I 0 o , 0UNTY OF o (0) j ANGE ROAD DEPARTMENT February 28, 1974 City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Rod Gunn Advance Planning Administrator ��®� L. McCONVILLE p�0A0 COMMI9910NER AND COUNTY SURVEYOR G`r4 /'00 ENGINEERING BUILDING \� 400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST /.� SANTA ANAL CALIFORNIA 92701 �I TELEPHONE 714-694-9466 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Circulation Element Gentlemen: Reference is made to your letters of January 16 and February 25, 1974, requesting our comments on the proposed circulation element for the City. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the City's proposed plan. We recognize the lengthy community effort required to prepare the proposed plan. The City is to be commended for its approach to the solution of a transportation problem created by a deletion of the Pacific Coast Freeway and fostered by the rapid growth in the County. We concur that several of the proposed changes; i.e., Seventeenth Street, Pacific Coast Highway relocation and cul-de-sac, and Corona del Mar Freeway require further coordination. There are several other modifications reflected in the plan that we believe should be coordinated. They are: Fifteenth Street Santa Ana Avenue University Drive Bristol Street MacArthur Blvd. (New) (PCH to San Miguel) Bison Avenue Avocado Avenue (San Miguel Drive to San Joaquin Hills Rd.) Canyon Crest Drive Fifth Avenue Unnamed Secondary Hwy. (E'ly of Newport Shores) Irvine Avenue (PCH to Cliff Drive) Newport Boulevard Upgrading Deletion Upgrading Addition and downgrading Deletion Downgrading Deletion Upgrading Deletion Deletion (� ►aM Connection ti �p�®Ei t9 Upgrading DO NOT REMOVE aP In the interest of waste resource recovery, this is recycled paper. _.r J 0 City of Newport Beach Attn. Mr. Rod Gunn February 28, 1974 Page 2 We have no comments on are consistent with the Highways, are of local changes. the remaining changes because they either present County Master Plan of Arterial significance, or appear to be appropriate We respectfully request that before the City takes action on these changes, the County and affected cities review the traffic analysis and analyze the effect created on present plans. Be advised that this office is available at any time for that purpose. Very truly yours, L. MCCONVILLE Road Commissioner & County Surveyor LM:HJK:hg cos: G. Brent Muchow, Director of Public Works City of Irvine James Eldredge, Public Services Director City of Costa Mesa Bill Hartge, Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach R. I. Morris, Chairman County Multi -Modal Transportation Committee . a • • COUNCILMEN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING Place: Council Chambers op °n Na Time: 7:30 P.M. G A P Date: February 28, 1974 C lal 1 r.A1 1(< t� t3• 17, MINUTES INDEX Present x x x x x x x Roll Call. Motion x The reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under Ayes x x x x x x x consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. A report from the Community Development Department General was presented with a copy of the proposed Circulation Plan/ Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and a geo- Circulation graphical area map. Element Letters were presented regarding the proposed Circulation Element from the following: Environmental Quality Coritrol Citizens' Advisory Committee, Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, Citizens' Coordinating Committee of the Harbor Area Freeway Fighters, Cameo Community Association, Donald Lawrenz, Calvin McLaughlin and Gerard Van Hoven submitting a white paper, an additional letter from Calvin McLaughlin, Gerard Van Hoven, Wallace Calderhead and Norman Weinberger, and a copy of The Irvine Company letter dated December 21, 1973. Letters were received after the agenda was printed and during the meeting from the following: League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, Corona del Mar Civic Association, Summary of Phase III Final Report of Newport Beach Traffic Study from Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Donald R. Lawrenz, Newport Harbor Chamber of Com- merce, Wallace C:alderhead, Mary E. Wiseman and a resolution from the Newport Center Association. Mayor McInnis opened the meeting with a statement to the effect that before adoption of any Element of the General Plan, the City Council must hold a duly -noticed public hearing by publishing notice of said hearing in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days prior to the hearing, and tonight's meeting in error was not properly noticed as a public hearing; therefore the City Council could not make any findings or take official action that evening. Mayor McInnis further stated that, on advice by the City Attorney, persons in attendance who wished to make statements or submit written evidence regarding the Circulation Element of the General Plan could' do so and the City Council could ask questions of those persons for purposes of fact finding and understanding; and the pro- ceedings would be recorded on tape and the transcript would be introduced and made a part of the official pro- ceedings when the matter was again considered at a duly - noticed, legal public hearing. The Council unanimously agreed with the Mayor's statement. A public hearing regarding adoption of the Circulation Public Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; review of Hearing the Newport Beach Traffic Study, Phase III; and acceptancE Set FILE k4k.,C�110 10 Volume 28 - Page 66 11 DO 'NOT REMOVE COUNCILMEN 'f4 �O 3 9 O %A �O Ai om to �A O Ol11 I �:el I �.n 9 din N C 9f Pln CITY OF NEWPORT F`ebruary 28. 1974 BEACH MINUTES INDEX Motion x of Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB 73-045 was set Ayes x x x x x x x for hearing on March 11, 1974 at 7:30 P. M. Al Krier, Regional Manager for the Transportation Planning Firm of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, the City's consultant in the Circulation Plan, gave a brief background of the Transportation Study and summarized the consultant's responsibilities to the City and their finding s . William Agee, Chairman of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, gave an overview of the Committee's responsibilities and historical activities. Community Development Director Richard Hogan gave a broad overview of the Planning Commission's review and conclusions. It was agreed to discuss the Circulation Plan by sections as outlined as geographical areas on the display map. Mayor McInnis opened Geographical Area 1 for discussion, and the following people addressed the Council: Joan Bernatz, representing the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, urged the acceptance of the Newport Beach Traffic Study. John McKerren was in favor of a major bypass route and urged the elimination of any reference to an interchange. Mayor McInnis opened Geographical Area 2 for discussion, and no one desired to speak. Mayor McInnis opened Geographical Area 3 for discussion, and David Arthur addressed the Council recommending that pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities be made a pars of the construction. Mayor McInnis opened Geographical Areas 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, for discussion, and no one desired to speak. Mayor McInnis opened Geographical Atea•8 for discussion, and the following people addressed the Council: Norman M. Weinberger, presented a petition bearing 5, 431 signatures of the citizens and merchants of Corona del Mar, opposing the use of any portion of the proposed Pacific Coast Highway route along Fifth Avenue and con- struction of an interchange between MacArthur Boulevard and the Coast Highway, and supporting the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway through Bonita Canyon as a bypass and ample off-street parking at Corona del Mar. Volume 28 - Page 67 COUNCILMEN p$0O32 0 0A ao P 0 1 1 f.AI 1 T 9 �.n a+ f 'Yf 10 CITY OF NEWPORT Fehruary 28. 1974 BEACH MINUTES INDEX Russell Serber, President of Cameo Community Associ- ation, opposed any change to the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and stated that Fifth Avenue should remain as one of the viable solutions. Motion x Mr. Serber was granted eight minutes for his presentation Ayes xxxxxxx Wallace Calderhead presented a petition bearing 234 signatures of Corona del Mar merchants and residents opposing the use of Fifth Avenue and supporting the use of Bonita Canyon as the bypass route. Les Steffensen urged representation of the entire city. Bob Stoessel, representing the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, reiterated the Chamber's support of the Fifth Avenue bypass. Motion x Mr. Gering was granted an additional five minutes for Ayes x x x x x x x his presentation. Chris Hopper, Corona del Mar businesswoman, presented a petition bearing 104 signatures of merchants in Corona del Mar opposing any removal of parking from the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and stating they feel there should be a bypass road. George Watson opposed any change in the parking on the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Robert San Chez urged that no major arteries be allowed to bisect the City and .supported a Bonita Canyon bypass road. Motion x Mr. San Chez was granted an additional two minutes for Ayes x x x x x x x his presentation. George Van Hoven, representing the Board of Directors of the Corona Highlands Community Association, opposed a Fifth Avenue bypass and stated that they did not feel the rerrloval of parking on Coast Highway was warranted at this time. Motion x Mr. Van Hoven was granted an additional three minutes Ayes x x x x x x x for his presentation. J. R. Blakemore, Vice -President and Director of Munic- ipal Affairs of the Harbor Hills Community Association, stated they felt that the Coast Highway, without an inter- change at MacArthur, was the proper outlet for the Corona del Mar through traffic, and supported the Bonita and. Coyote Canyons alignment and the proposed parking prohibition on the Coast Highway. Volume 28 - Page 68 COUNCILMEN %0 0C m �09 ZZ QG y A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L`oh rn�ry 9R 1Q74 MINUTES INDEX Motion x Mr. Blakemore was granted an additional three minutes Ayes x x x x x x x for his presentation. Paul Hummel, President of the Corona del Mar Civic Association, stated the Association was ninety-eight per cent in favor of supporting the petition which opposed a Fifth Avenue corridor and favored the Bonita Canyon - Coyote Canyon continuation of the Corona del Mar Free- way. Alan Schwalbe stated that he felt that the Fifth Avenue corridor was the only open land we have that might get traffic from MacArthur through the City. Jerry Hill suggested afour-lane road along Fifth Avenue to absorb some of the traffic while Bonita Canyon bypass is. being constructed. Helen M. Karen opposed the Fifth Avenue bypass. Motion x John Haskill presented a written statement for the record recommending that the Circulation Element be amended to include a route along Fifth Avenue. After determining that no one else desired to speak on the matter, Mayor McInnis announced that transcripts of the tape of the evening's proceedings would be made available to anyone who wished a copy, and that anybody who had any new evidence or testimony to present to the Council, could certainly do so at the March 11 public hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p. M. Ayes xxxxxxx Volume 28 - Page 69 l 7 too -7 Special City Council Meeting February 28; 1974 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 19, 1974 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJ: Request to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and acceptance of the E.I.R. 73-045. Background On December 13, 1973 the Planning Commission held its first public hearing on the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and on January 10, 1974 the Commission adopted Resolution 873 recommending approval of the Element to the City Council. On January 17, 1974 the Planning Commission rescinded all of its previous actions pertaining to Coast Highway between MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Road and adopted Resolution No. 875 setting a public hearing to reconsider this segment of Coast Highway. On February 7, 1974 the Commission completed their deliberations on the Circulation Element and made their final recommendations to the City Council. The Minutes pertaining to the Circulation Element of these meetings are attached. Legal Requirements Section 65302 of the Government Code requires that local General Plans include: "A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan." In addition the State of California Council on Intergovernmental Relations has adopted guidelines for the scope and nature of the Circulation Element. These guidelines are included in the "Purpose and Scope" section of the Circulation Element text. F0LIZ Q'�-©pV -1- DO 'NOT REMOVE Circulation Element Text Attached is a copy of the Circulation Element text as recom- mended to the City Council by the Planning Commission. This text is based upon the Newport Beach Traffic Study prepared by the Consultant Firm of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates. The Consultant's report should be referred to for the various - alternatives that were considered by the Planning Commission in adopting the Circulation Element text. However, the public hearing is for the City Council's consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendations as contained in the attached Circulation Element. Any revisions by the City Council, by state law, will have to be referred back to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Itemized below are the recommendations of the Consultant and the Planning Commission in those instances where the Commission took exception to the recommendations of the Consultant. Road. The Planning Commission recommended that an interchange be included at Coast Highway and MacArthur. However, the interchange is assigned as a low -priority item in order that before implementation, the City may assess what effect other improvements may have on the efficiency of the street system. Also, as an alternate to the interchange the Commission recommends that the feasibility of a one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road be given further study. The Consultant's recommendation differred in that he recommended a signalized intersection at MacArthur and Coast Highway. 2. Dover Drive from Westcliff to Coast Highway. The Planning Commission recommends that Dover Drive be upgraded to a full major road (six lanes divided). The Consultant recommended that Dover Drive be a primary road (four lane divided) which is its present status. 3. Second crossing over Upper Newport Bay. It was the feeling of the Planning Commission that with Dover Drive upgraded in status to a major road, the improvements recommended for the intersection of Coast Highway and Dover Drive and the Coast Highway Bridge as recommended by both the Planning Commission and the Consultant, that a second crossing over Upper Newport Bay is not necessary. Within the Consultant's report, a second crossing is recommended with a low priority. 4. Dover Drive between Westcliff Drive and Irvine Avenue. The Planning Commission eliminated the Consultant's recom- mendation that the existing section have one-way traffic south -bound and the roadway to the east of the drainage -2- channel be one-way traffic north -bound. 5. Westcliff Drive between 17th Street and Dover Drive. The Planning Commission did not feel that additional widening of this segment, as recommended by the Consultant, was necessary without a second crossing over Upper Newport Bay. 6. Santa Ana Avenue. At the recommendation of the staff, Santa Ana Avenue was eliminated as a secondary classification from the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. 7. 16th Street between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive. The Planning Commission recommended that this route be shown as a secondary roadway as shown on the present Master Plan of Streets and Highways. 22nd Street within the city limits. The Planning Commission recommended that 22nd Street be a secondary road as shown on the present Master Street wnd Highways Plans for the cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. The Consultant recommended that this segment be a primary road. In addition, the Planning Commission qualified three of the Consultant's recommendations as foll-ows: 1. Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard. 2. Coast Highway from MacArthur through 'Corona del Mar. The Consultant recommended parking prohibitions at selected hours to gain additional street capacity on these two segments. The Planning Commission recommended that time -controlled parking, if necessary, be limited to two one -hour peaks and instituted only when adequate off-street parking is available. In addition, the Commission recommended that it be the policy of the City of Newport Beach to develop additional off-street commercial parking whether time -controlled parking is ever needed or not. 3. Balboa Boulevard from 33rd Street to 44th Street. The Planning Commission recommended that any future widening of this segment be accomplished without a net reduction in existing City park facilities in the general area. Master Plan of Streets and Highways Attached is a map entitled "Newport Beach Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets and Highways". It is intended that the Master Plan of Streets and Highways satisfy the state requirement that the Circulation Element contain a diagram or map. -8- T • 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 with the plans of the County and all adjacent cities. The proposed relocation of Pacific Coast Highway, the relocation of the Corona del Mar freeway and the extension of 17th Street have potential, effects on cities adjacent to the City of Newport Beach and, therefore, have been classified as routes that require further coordination. However, it is intended that the alignments shown on the Master Plan of Streets and Ways for each of these routes f , , o r,+%T of NPWbOrt Beach. At t-a•c-h e-dra.r,e th:e : c h-�a:r-g es_ t o__t h e e x i s t i n g Master Plan of Stxye`e"ts and Highways and the County Ma-s-t•e-r—P_1_axt_of Arterial --""Highways are delineated. Public Transit and Parking Facilities It is the opinion of the staff that the Scope of the Circulation Element should include recommendations for other types of transportation facilities, such as public transit. It is the intent of the staff to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date with recommendations for an amendment to the Circulation Element to include public transit and parking facilities. Environmental Impact Report An E.I.R. has not, as of yet, been prepared by the staff. It is expected that the E.I.R. will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at their meeting on March 7, 1974. Therefore, if the City Council chooses to adopt the Circulation Element as submitted by the Planning Commission on February 28, 1974, any approval should be conditioned subject to the approval of an E.I.R. If the City Council makes any modifications to the Circulation Element as submitted by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission will review and comment on these modifications and consider acceptance of the E.I.R. concurrently. Action Hold hearing, close hearing; if desired, (a) adopt Resolution No. adopting the Circulation Element of the General Plan subject to the approval of EIR/NB 73-045; or (b) modify the Circulation Element and refer back to the Planning Commission for review and comment. -4- • Representatives of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates will be at the meeting to answer any questions the Council may have. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By N A •..i ---+ Rodney L. Gunn Advance Planning Administrator RLG:jmb Att: Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 1973, January 10, 1974, January 17, 1974 and February 7, 1974. Changes to the existing Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the County!�-Master Plan of Arterial Highways. -5- COMMISSIONERS 90 n j m p pO m Sp0 CITY OF N'W'ORT ecial Planning Commission Me#ACH ng Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:00 p.m. Date: December 13, 1973 PAINUTES INDEX ROLL CALL Present X X X X X X Excused X EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS .R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director David R. Baade, Assistant City Attorney Ben Nolan, Assistant Public Works Director STAFF MEMBERS Rod Gunn, Advance Planning Administrator Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer Joanne Bader, Secretary Minutes of November 29, 1973 were approved Motion X as written with the understanding that the last Ayes X X X X X X page, which was inadvertently typed on an old Excused X Minute form, be retyped on the correct form. k ,F A• X ,� :F k 'iC :F :t Request to consider the adoption of'the Element of the Newport Beach General _Circulation Plan and acceptance of Environmental"Impact _ eport EIR/NB - 73-045. Chairman Agee explained that the adoption of the Circulation Element, is an item that has Public Hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. Chairman Agee then read the staff recommendations to the audience. In response to Chairman Agee, Mr. Hogan clarified the recommendations of the Staff for the Planning Commission and informed the Commission that Mr. Al Krier of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates would be speaking to discuss the recommendations of the Voorhees' firm. Mr. Hogan explained that the Phase III report is the final report of the Consultant anal that it was originally presented to the Transportation -Plan Citizens Advisory Committee for review. Mr. Hogan stated that this is the first time the Traffic Study, as a whole, has been presented before the citizens of Newport Beach for public.hearing. Chairman Agee questioned the word "study" on the map entitled "The Newport Beach Circulation Element - Pilaster Plan of Streets and'Highways -1- •f. COMr,1JSSIONERS .p pf N CITY Or NE' PORT December 13, 1973 AACH because he felt it implies that the have some doubt as to whether these be considered. Chairman Agee felt word "coordination" alone would be 'MINOTFS City may areas should that the sufficient. 14r. AT Krier of Voorhees and Associates then appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss the Phase III report. Mr. Krier informed the Commission that the first phase of the study was Problem Identification which was completed in September of 1972; the second phase was Developing Alternate Solutions which was completed in March, 1973; and the third phase was Plan Selection and Implementation which was completed approximately 6 weeks ago. Mr. Krier then discussed the evaluation process and plan development features with the Commission. Mr. Krier discussed the constraints on the plan in detail; the most current constraint being H stated that as a result the energy crisis. e of this crisis, some street and highway improvements may not be needed. He also stated that the gas tax funds used _for such _lmproye-. __j Ments may also be reduced. Mr, `Krier .discussedthe } gre.atertthan.atuanyctimensiinceathen1940bs.---r , I Mr. Krier stated that Voorhees and Associates have been working with the Transportation. Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and the City staff for about 2-1/2 years. At this time Mr. Krier thanked the Committee through Chairman Agee and thanked the City staff for their assistance . in helping Voorhees and Associates develop the Transportation Study. In response to a question by the Commission, Mr. Krier discussed the problem of summer beach traffic and informed the Commission that the City of Newport Beach could not possibly enter into a program to handle beach traffic without the assistance of the surrounding agencies such as Costa Mesa, the County and Irvine. At this time Chairman Agee -opened the Public Hearing and asked for comment on the Consultant's recommendations in Corona del Mar. Norman Weinberger, Corona del Mar, presented to the Commission a copy of a petition from the citizens and businessmen of Corona del Mar. C8Mt,NISSiONERS \�\m.4rA 2\��`�\Z\ LL ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES December 13, 1973 At this time, Mr. Weinberger read the petition tion to the Commission. He stated that the peti contained 5oemersignatures from Coronaresidents Mar. including signers of the Mr. Weinberger soatoseded hto aneexpessway along petition are 1) Support the completion of the Fifth Avenue, 2) through Bonita Canyon and Corona del Mar Freeway 3) Want to insure the bus irotected. He stated on the Coast Highway are P ort the that the petremoval ition does not swap Mr Weinberger of parking on the Coast Highway - meeting on Phase pointed out that the only are against the Fifth II indicated that people Avenue alignment. He further stated that the most obvious opposition is an SFreeway running971 to delete the Pacific cerlystwhichexactly from Buck Gulley ossible expressway would the area:in which a p be -built on Fifth Avenue. presented to Wallace Planning Commission°aadel lettehraandppetition. the Planning etition He informed the Commission that the p• consisted of 134os tioonutoosof the useona of Fifth merchants -in oPP ort of the .Avenue in Corona del Mar' thisntimepMr. Calderhead use of Bonita Canyon. At read the cover letter to -the Commission. Mr. Calderhead further mentioned that also on s of 100 his petition were the signaturHe stated that Mar - residents of Corona del Mar. except Item No. 3 this petition is identical to the Corona del Mar Citizens' Petition Committee's tit of the petition. He stated that Item No. 3 in this group of petitioners differs °present traffic supporting the continuatiofonhthe Coast flow and parking arrangements Highway in Corona del Mar. Mr. Calderhead then introduced Mr. Jim 6lakem°re to the Commission. Mr. Blakemore stated that a vast majority of the residents of Harbor View Hills and all the members of the supportingthe Directors signed the petition supP Commis - Traffic ConsultauestedethatethetPlanninge respectfully req endorse the statement on page 21 Sion specifically of of the final report e freeway on a' constructing alignment. He stated that of the Bonita Canyon M&L C0,1AWSSIONERS RIND TE5 December 13, 1973 approximately 5,000 persons who signed the petition, about 1/2 live south of Fifth Avenue. He stated that contrary to the opinion 'of one local newspaper, these clearly are not the opinions of just a few people whose views would be impaired by a freeway -type road. Calvin McLaughlin, Coro the Commission that on submitted to them a whi traffic patterns in Cor MacArthur Blvd. east. the report supports the del Mar freeway through that it would be more s modify the Coast Highwa the Fifth Avenue expres some of the considerati in his white paper. He Consultant's report ove estimate in 1990 becaus the pollution and publi decrease the amount of because air pollution i has proposed severe par na' del Mar, informed December 6, 1973 he to paper discussing the ona del Mar from He stated that in summary relocation of the Corona Bonita Canyon. He felt ensibl'e to slightly y instead of constructing sway. He then reviewed ons that were covered felt that the Traffic restimates the traffic e the energy crisis, c transportation would traffic. He stated that s very high, the E.P.A. king restrictions which would effect the downcoast development, and in fact, all of the downcoast development had to be scrutinized. Robert Sanshay, Harbor View Hills, stated that on the map the new M.acAr.thur Blvd. is tentatively routed to the Coast Highway through undeveloped Irvine Center property. He stated that this would indicate 10 lanes back and forth from San Joaquin Hills Road down to the Coast' Highway. He believed that this should be rejected because he felt it would do nothing but serve the City of Irvine residents. He stated that t-he MacArthur Freeway alignment would be inappropriate and felt that the people of Newport Beach could encourage routing around the City by rejecting it. He felt that the most appropriate site for'the Corona del Mar freeway would be Bonita Canyon Road because it is presently vacant and future planning could be made accordingly. H. W. Lenton, Newport Beach, stated that he was vice-chairman of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, which reviewed COMMISSIONERS � CITY OF NEWPORT OEACH x A December 13, 1973 Rrn i ral l m MINUTES IN Vk:A the Consultant's recommendations. He stated that although he has great respect for the people of Corona del Mar and their concern, he felt that they are overreacting in the matter. He stated that it is difficult, if not impossible for a community to be able to visualize what it may be like 10 to 20 years from now. He felt that the petitions p.resented have been made with the assumption that it is possible to maintain the parking on Coast Highway and get by without a Fifth Avenue by-pass. He stated that the Citizen's Committee spent many hours � trying to work that compromise but that it would not work. He felt that the City should retain all of its options, and not go completely one way or the other at this time. He said that this plan would take approximately 10 years to implement and that the Fifth Avenue decision need not be made at this time. He then recommended that the Planning Commission keep their options open. Roy Jordano, Corona del Mar, stated that he represented the Corona del Mar Highlands Association as an attorney 10 or 12 years ago when they met in objection to the then -proposed Coast Freeway. He stated that after the tremendous amount of time, work and expense that has gone into this matter, it was illadvised that no action should be taken in connection with the Fifth Avenue. He stated that those people, who are satisfied with not just the way things are now but also the way they want things in the future, have taken the position that they want the Planning Commission to approve the report as made by the Consultant. Paul Hummel; President of Corona del Mar Civic Association stated that the petition has a virtual unanimous support of that association. He felt that it is possible to look 15 years into the future because many people have seen what cities have done in the coastal areas in the past by allowing the freeways and highway patterns to develop to the extent that it is no longer a desirable place to live. For this reason, he felt that the people are entitled to express their concern for the future and to emplore the Commission to look favorably on that which will preserve the quality of living in the community. - 5- COMMISSIONERS p m R,1 X z p m ROLL CALL ^' CITY OF N EWPORT BEACH December 13, 1973 MINUTES r INUtx Ronald Barthalameww, Corona del filar, stated that it has been shown in history that as a major highway is built, the traffic, people, and industry also increase so that by building a by-pass, two streets are created that are shortly over capacity. He stated that if the parking on the Coast Highway is eliminated, there will be increased generation of air pollution. He advised the Commission that those people who live immediately adjacent to the freeways in Los Angeles,'according to recent editorials and articles in the Los Angeles Times are being exposed to poisonous substances that may be extremely harmful to their health. He stated that this problem is accentuated in this area where there is a prevailing westerly breeze that picks up the smog and blows it directly into the faces of the residents in the Harbor View Hills area. He submitted that the primary consideration of the Planning Commission is not how to increase traffic but how to reduce smog. He felt that the -Commission should take action now to commit themselves to that course. Ester Kabak, Corona del Mar, stated that she has noticed that after crossing Dover on the Coast Highway, there is very little traffic even during summer usage. She stated that no matter where a person lives, if the bridge is not widened or some sort of alternate route made available to divert traffic, there will still be a bottleneck. Calvin McLaughlin then reappeared before the Commission and stated that the Fifth Street ' alignment plus the agreed -to Corona del Mar freeway alignment down MacArthur would be sufficient capacity to carry all the traffic generated downcoast. He felt that the Bonita Canyon freeway might become estranged under those conditions. He felt that this would accentuate the problems mentioned earlier such as extra air pollution, extra people on the beaches and extra parking problems throughout the community. Dr. Nichols, Corona del Mar, asked since it has already been decided that MacArthur would be a six -lane divided highway, that the new MacArthur Blvd. would be a 4-lane divided highway, and the San Joaquin Hills Road would be a six -lane divided highway, were the changes proposed for -6- COMMISSIONERS im m m rn „ m v Z � f ro Z &OIL CALL ' • CITY OF NEWPORT "ACH December 13, 1973 iNAINUTES INDEX r .COiNAMISSIONERS • CITY Y OF N EWPOR) JEACH RMI rain m December 13, 1973 MINUTES IN VGA There being no others desiring to be heard on this segment, Chairman Agee asked for comment on the Consultant's recommendation for parking prohibitions at selected hours on the Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard, along with recommending off-street parking spaces to replace any lost on -street spaces that would occur during the selected prohibitions if it became necessary. There being no one desiring to be heard on this segment, Chairman Agee asked for comment on the new alignment for Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard. Dr. Dick Nichols then reappeared before the Commission and asked what exactly the new alignment would be. Chairman Agee informed Dr. Nichols that the correct alignment is shown on the map. Dr. Nichols then asked about leaving the existing bridge rather than cul-de-sac Coast Highway. Chairman Agee stated that the recommended proposal seemed to be compatible with the wishes of the community. Suzanne Rudd,, representative of the Newport Shores Community Association stated that in a unanimous vote by the Board of Directors, the Association is in complete support of the cul-de-sacing of the Coast Highway. She stated that the Association hopes that their input would be allowed in, -further studies as far as the precise location of the Highway. John Wellerlquestioned the possibility o•f the state objecting to the proposal to cut the state highway to make a cul-de-sac. Chairman Agee answered that the.state would have a great deal to say about the matter .as well as other agencies, such as Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. He further stated that this would require extensive public hearings. There being no others desiring to be heard on this segment, Chairman Agee asked for comment on all areas. _g_ •COMMISs2 IoNERS • 'CITY OF NEWPORT#E,�CH m m a O rc islli`]L1Tz5 x p December 13, 1973 Anl f rat, �^ ImnN`3 Ester Kabak then reappeared before the Commission and asked the Commission whether the Coast Highway would also be widened between Jamboree Road and Dover Drive. Chairman Agee informed her that it would. He stated that this section of Coast Highway did get upgraded to six lanes because it was necessary to fit in with the suggested bridge configuration and adding additional right -turn movement lanes to allow free -flowing movement straight ahead to cut down the bottleneck that exists there. Ms. Kabak then asked if the new development going in on the south side of the Coast Highway between Jamboree and Bayside would have a road with cars exiting to Coast Highway. Ben Nolan stated that there is a road from Promontory Point exiting directly to the Coast Highway and that he believes the distance is approximately 800 to 1,000 feet westerly of the present Jamboree Road intersection. Ms. Kabak then questioned whether a traffic -signal at this location would create a back-up with people still at the intersection of Jamboree and Coast Highway because it is so close. Chairman Agee stated that the City Council discussed alternatives which were an underpass for left -turn movements, making only right -turn movements out of the project and putting a light in, and that it was the advice of the then Traffic Engineer that it could be coordinated so that the traffic would not cause a problem. Ms. Kabak then questioned how definite the proposal is to make San Joaquin Hills Road go east in the direction of Laguna. Chairman Agee advised her that this has been on the Master Plan for quite some time and that the probability of it going through would be about 99%, although there is still some question as to the size it will be. Paul Hummel stated that it is his understanding that the Traffic Study recommends that parking -9- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPCIRT BEACH R, m rn x m a x cn x • December 13, 1973 • MINUTES INDEX__ RtlLL I.HLL P along the Coast Highway in old Corona del Mar will be removed during peak hours and felt the determination of those peak hours is of great interest to the business community. .He felt that they would want to know very definitely what those hours are likely to be before they are implemented. He stated that although there is, some suggestion of alternate parking available somewhere, he does not know where that is and that everyone knows that this would be terribly expensi e and probably economically impossible. He further stated that he has personal ideas about the shoppi g area being made more attractive in this area and that he is going to talk to the Chamber of Commerc there about perhaps developing a theme to make it more attractive to people who come into the area. He felt that these people could do a service to themselves by improving the shop ability of the area. He felt that if parking is stopped, it would impair, the chances of the new, more -attractive shopping area before it j has begun. He stated that he does not feel that the traffic on the Coast Highway is that bad at the peak hours that people can't live with it. He then asked the Commission to consider this when they consider changing the parking on the Coast Highway in Corona del filar. Calvin McLaughlin reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the engineering figures for average daily traffic are very standardized across large -regions of the country and that they don't take into account regional variances. He stated that one might wonder how the citizens of Corona del Mar manage to get by with such grossly -overloaded streets. He felt that the real demonstrative capacity of the roads should be kept.in mind. Barbara Eastman, Citizen's Environmental Quality Control Committee stated that the Commission asked the Committee to review the report and comment. She stated that the very term "traffic study" implies cars, and that al- though the Committee realizes the Consultant mentioned other means of transportation in the report, they wish to see the Circulation Element speak specifically to other types of transportation. " Ray Williams, representing Friends of Newport Bay stated he is very pleased to see that -10- COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORTWEACH MINUTES A p December 13, 1973 trnf f rats *++ Upper Newport Bay still does not have any roads crossing it. He stated that he is concerned about a small section of marshland adjacent to Back Bay Drive. He stated that the Friends of Newport Bay would oppose Back Bay Drive being widened to four lanes because that would add to the traffic burden, noise, etc. which would interfere with the wild life values of that area. He also commented on the University Drive portion at the upper end of the bay which is proposed to become six lanes. He stated that this seems to be a lot but felt that this may relieve some traffic pressures. He stated that the Friends of the Bay would not like to see any additional roads along the bay. He felt that as an alternative to this, the proposed University Drive would.be more acceptable than any sort of crossing in the bay. Jim Blakemore stated that in.attending various meetings in June and July he noticed that Exhibit D was passed out with the traffic deficiencies shown therein and since that time the Consultant has made reference to some of the recent trends that may result in the need for fewer traffic improvements than is anticipated. He stated that while the text of the report deals with.some of these factors, the assessment of the various options of Appendix D still show the same figures for traffic deficiencies'shown many months ago. He wondered if these recent developments wouldn't have some effect, if not a large effect, on the traffic to be generated in the future. There being no others desiring to'be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on the recommendation of Project 8 of the report relating to parking prohibitions on the Coast 'Highway at selecte.d hours. Chairman Agee stated that he supports the recommendations of the Consultant. He stated that time -controlled parking, if ever necessary, should be limited to two one -hour peaks, one hour in the a.m. and one in the p.m. He also stated that the City should develop an improved off-street parking plan for the Corona del Mar commercial district whether time- Co imISSIONERS G y i S N Z ;o CITY OF aN. EWPORMOBEACH December 13, 1973 MINUTES !4 IDEX ROLL CALL controlled parking is ever needed or not. He stated that this has been discussed in the past and that there are committees currently looking into this. Chairman Agee felt that this should be stated in the section. The Commissioners then had a general discussion relating to time -controlled parking, whether it would be desirable to retain the Fifth Avenue area as an alternative and whether it. would be appropriate to send more than one recommendation to City Council. Motion to accept the Consultant's recommendation Motion X X X X X X and use the Project 8 description as the basis Ayes Excused X X for developing the text of the element along with time -controlled parking, if necessary, limited to two one -hour peaks, also indicating the policy that the City will continue to look at additional off-street commercial parking and that the Fifth Avenue corridor was considered and rejected as an alternative because of lack of community support and other considerations. Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on the recommendation of Project 7 which provides -for the widening of Coast Highway to six lanes from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road. Chairman Agee clarified Option 2, which is the recommendation of the Consultant, for the ajidi•ence and Commission." Motion X Motion to accept Option'•2.i-n Project 7.' Ayes X X X X X X Excused X Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the . Commissioners on the recommendation of Projects 5 and 6 which provide for the construction of a bridge on Coast Highway across the Bay to replace the existing bridge and to widen the Coast Highway to six lanes from Jamboree Road to the proposed Upper Bay Bridge replacement, " respectively. The Commission questioned the possibility of saving the old bridge. -12- COMM15510NER5 3O y m u ROLL CALL r Motion Ayes Excused XI IXIXIXIX X 0 CITY OF N EWPORT 4JEACH P.1111U'fES December 13, 1973 Mr. Nolan then informed them that the bridge would require an unduly amount of maintenance. Motion to accept the options described in Projects 5 and 6. Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on the recommendation of Project 4 which provides for parking prohibitions at selected hours on Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard to gain additional street capacity. Chairman Agee suggested as a clarification to the Project 4 description that time -controlled parking, if necessary, be limited to two one - hour peaks and also that the City should continue to develop off-street parking in this district whether time -controlled parking is ever needed or not. Motion X Motion to accept the option described in Ayes X X X X X Project 4 with the clarification described Excused X above. Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on Project 3 which provides for the construction of a new interchange on Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard. The Commission questioned the possibility of saving the old bridge. Mr. Nolan stated that although the bridge is in rather good shape, it would be difficult to widen. The Commission then discussed whether this bridge could be considered a historical monument. Motion Motion to accept the options described in Ayes X X X X Project 3-.- Excused X Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on Projects 1 and 2 which provide 1 -13- REACH MINUTES INDEX a new alignment for Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard. Nolan stated that it is clearly the City's Mr. intent and policy that the reallignment of the highway include the cul-de-sacing of the highway. He felt that the present present Master Plan should also include the existing highway as it is and that this would be a slight modification to the verbatim wording of the recommendation. Motion X Motion to approve Projects 1 and 2 as recom- mended by Staff. Ayes Excused X X******** X X X X At this time Chairman Agee reviewed some of the specifics in the plan that the staff has included on their map. Chairman Agee the difference in the.alignment questioned of the Newport Freeway on the maps because they seemed to differ but in other respects looked the same. Mr. Gunn stated that he felt perhaps the - solution to this would be that the Master Plan should be more generalized. Chairman Agee stated that the composite plan as recommended by the Consultant is a more generalized representation and that there are a lot of options being considered that really can't be put on'the map. He felt that to give the Commission a point to start from, the map should be more general. is :F is �r ie ,F 9e k �c ix 3e * i i Motion X Motion to continue this meeting until I Ayes X X X X X X January 10, 1974. Excused Planning Commission adjourned at 11:35 p.m. JOSEPH ROSENER, JR., Secretar Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -14- I �t COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT OACH a m 5 2 •o �° m Special Planning Commission Meeting m m Place: City Council Chambers 2 p Time: 7:00 p.m. Qnll re,i m nA+a• .1Anil wry in 107A MINUTES Present X X X X X X EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director David R. Baade, Assistant City Attorney Ben Nolan, Assistant Public Works Director STAFF MEMBERS Rod Gunn, Advance Planning Administrator Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer Bill Foley, Senior Planner Joanne Bader, Secretary Motion X Minutes of December 13, 1973 were approved yes IX X X X X X as written. Beckley abstained because he bstained X was not present at that meeting. Item A-1 Public Hearing - Request to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and acceptance of Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB - 73-045,. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach. Mr. Hogan informed the Commission that the first item on the agenda is the continued hearing on the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. He stated that the Commission has made a number of decisions on this element and that the votes and decisions that were made are listed in the Minutes of the last special meeting. He stated that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss those items that were not previously discussed and on which decisions were not made. He informed the Commission that it is the staff's intent, after the Commission has completed their hearing on this element and has adopted it, to put it in a form for presentation to the Council. He stated that if the Commission takes action tonight and unless that action is extremely complicated, the staff expects to be able to put the item together that they will present to Council and bring it to the Commission on the 17th to be sure that the staff has incorporated in it the Commission's intentions. COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF N EWPORT SACK D� �Sy m 3110 m January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX ROLL CALL The Commission discussed the fact that they have been receiving letters on the 5th Avenue bypass. Mr. Parker felt that the Commission evidence was not furnished with any substantial the merits of the 5th Avenue bypass concerning and only received evid-ence to the contrary. He felt that the Commission is being criticized for something for which they had no evidence. The Commission voiced their disappointment that the people who are criticizing them did their not come to the public hearing to voice opinion. Chairman Agee then opened discussion on Projects report which provide 33 and 34 of the Consultant's for a second crossing over, Upper Newport Bay. for the Commission He then read these projects and audience. Chairman Agee then opened the public hearing on these projects. There being no one desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Chairman Agee stated that there was testimony Willard Wade, who represented on that item from the Dover Shores Community Association at the Commission's December 13, 1973 Special Meeting. Wade is opposed He read from the Minutes that Mr. to Projects 33 and,34 as listed in the Phase III Report because he is concerned with any additional roads that might bring additional traffic. He further read that Mr. Wade felt that adding this traffic would add noise and air pollution to the area and that the people do of Dover Shores who live facing the water not want to look at an additional bridge. low - Chairman Agee mentioned that this is a very priority item and a very expensive one. The Commission felt that some consideration should be given to making the new bridge at Coast Highway extra wide so that the two bridges could be combined. Chairman Agee stated that the only reason for that really studying this second crossing was a lot of people only use the short segment between Jamboree and Dover to get around the bay and that since there is no other way, it puts an overload on that one segment. -2- COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT 41ACH n m <? m a m a A o January 10, 1974 nnn gel, m MINUTES INDEX The Commission discussed the possibility of widening the existing bridge, the fact that the bridge would contain 6 travel lanes and two right -turn lanes at Dover, and discussed whether the bridge is a bottleneck. Mr. Nolan stated that the bridge is substandard in more than one way; it is substandard as far as width is concerned and it is substandard structurally. He stated that the bottlenecks on Coast Highway are the signalized intersections and that the congestion shows up at the bridge. Mr. Nolan stated that the capacity that can be developed crossing the bridge is going to depend on the design of the new bridge which is constructed and the design of the facilities) that serve the bridge. Mr. Nolan stated that if the interchange is not constructed on Dover Drive then some drastic intersection widening and treatment is going to be needed to try to provide an acceptable level of service through that intersection. In response to the Commission's question as to who wo.uld pay for the interchange and the grade separation, Mr. Nolan stated that Coast Highway is a State Highway and that it would be the City's position that improvements to Coast Highway, including the interchange at Dover Drive would be the state's responsibility He further stated that knowing the funding limitation that exists on the pa,rt of the state as well as the City, the state and others have, talked about project priorities being increased by local cooperative participation. In response to the Commission's question as to what would be involved in making Dover Drive a major road, Mr. Nolan stated that it would involve the widening of the easterly side of the road. He further stated that it would be physically feasible since the easterly side is undeveloped, except for the present interim development in Bay Shores. The Commission then questioned if this was studied by the Consultant. Mr. Nolan informed them that a study was not prepared on this. The Commission questioned how they can adopt a project of this significance without the . Environmental Impact Report which they will study after they have acted on the Circulation Ei ement•., -3- ROLL Motion Ayes Noes COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF Pe1E�PJPORT BEACH y m Z 2 o A m MINUTES A January 10, 1974 The Commission had a general discussion as to whether they should adopt the second bay crossing as a low -priority item or eliminate it. Motion that Projects 33 and 34 be deleted from X X X X X the Circulation Element. Chairman Agee then opened discussion on the Project 14 description which provides for the widening of •Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive to Coast Highway. The Commission discussed that since they have already voted to delete the Second Bay Crossing whether it would be appropriate totincrease Dover from the Coast Highway et o major road status. The Commission then decided to discuss Projects 14 and 15 together. Mr. Nolan pointed out that the upgrading of the portion in Project 14 does not imply an upgrading in the classification of Project 15. Chairman Agee opened the public hearing on Projects 14 and 15. There being no one desiring to be heard on these segments, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. The Commission questioned that if they Upgraded Project 14 to a major status, considering their previous action of eliminating the second bay crossing, would there still be traffic deficiencies forecasted for the future. Nolan' answered tif this is to major status,therewouldbe no traffic upgraded ffic deficiency. The Commission then questioned whether it would be physically possible to have six lanes tied into 17th. Mr. Nolan answered that in the case of this particular project, he thinks that the widened Dover Drive from Coast Highway to -4- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF N E vVeOR1 SEACH C+ R' Z p F P oni i rni i m January 10, 1974 MINUTES Westcliff could be accommodated fairly well because the traffic that will be using that street will split in two fairly major streams; one, northerly on Dover Drive into the West Bluff residential area, and the other westerly on Westcliff Drive and into the commercial area, thus providing two arterial highways connecting to one arterial highway.. Motion X Motion to adopt a major road status for the All Ayes section from Coast Highway to 17th for Dover Drive. The Commission then questioned whether they j need to go to a 4-lane divided or leave it as a primary on the extension of Dover (Project 15). I Mr. Nolan stated that he does not feel there has really been any evidence presented that calls for consideration of a change of the primary status of the portion extending northerly of Westcliff and connecting to Irvine Avenue. The Commission questioned whether Dover Drive north of 17th is presently classified as a primary road modified. Mr. Nolan informed them that it is. Mrz Nolan stated that he feels it is important in discussing this item to remember that the arterial classification of the roadway is not changing regardless of whether or not the implementation of Project 15 is recommended by the Commission in this case. Mr. Nolan stated that the adoption of Project 15 by the Commission would constitute an endorsement by the Commission that at such time as the traffic demands required, the Commission would endorse the concept of the conversion to a one-way cuplet operation. Mr. Nolan mentioned that this does not make any change in the width of the roadway but that it would increase the traffic handling capacity. The Commission then had a general discussion on the status of the cul-de-s""'acing from Mariners to Irvine. The Commission questioned whether the impact of the potential traffic flow that might be -5- COMMISSIONERS • CITE( OF NEWPORT *ACH MINUTES i 7 A ;0 January 10, 1974 anu well m Imnry generated, had been considered in light of the proximity of the Mariner's Park and school, etc. Mr. Nolan stated that he does not know if that point was discussed during the conduct of the traffic study. He did not feel that this change would:'generate additional traffic but would enable the traffic that is there to be better handled. The Commission discussed that this area..is a highly -travelled area by pedestrians, children,.\ bicycles, etc. and whether it would be wise to speed up traffic. The Commission also discussed the speed limit that would be imposed on the street. Mr. Nolan stated that there would probably be some improvements in pedestrian safety particularly because in crossing either half of the roadway, one would have to look out for traffic approaching from one direction only rather than two directions. He added that he thinks that the tendency of the driver on the street would be to travel a little faster than if the two-way streets were retained. Mr. Seely stated that he believes that in that area there is no particular danger of encroachments on the existing right-of-way so if the matter were to be taken up again some time in the future, it could be conveniently done. He stated that in the meantime, he is hesitant to route a heavily - travelled route through what is a resident-tal area and particularly with the park and school. He felt that a minimal diversion is involved to send people down 17th and up Irvine if that is the particular direction they want to go. Motion X Motion to delete Project 15. Ayes X X X X X X Noes X Chairman Agee then opened discussion on Projects 21, 22 and 23. Mr. Hogan informed the Commission that in Project 21 there is a 21-A which calls for a cuplet below San Joaquin Hills Road from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road on -6- COMMISSIONERS (� m m � ROLL CALL 2` • CITY OF NEWPORT41EACH January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX Avocado and MacArthur. Chairman Agee then opened the Public Hearing on these projects. There being no one desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Chairman Agee reviewed the Consultant's recommendations for the Commission and audience. Mr. Nolan pointed out a map error on page 60 of the report, Project 23 which should show State Route 73 going from Ford Road to Bison Avenue. Notion X Motion to accept the Consultant's recommendations 411 Ayes on Project 21 to widen Old MacArthur Blvd. between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. lotion Motion that,�rojects 22 and 23 be approved III Ayes with modifications discussed earlier. Mr. Hogan then brought up the Corona del Mar freeway which is not shown as a project in the report. He suggested that the Commission consider whether or not they want to take a position on the relocation of the Corona del Mar freeway into Bonita Canyon. Mr. Hogan stated that this is not shown as a project in the report because it is not in the City, and consequently, it isn't a project that the City will undertake. Mr. Hogan stated that this route is shown on the map as a route that "requires further study and coordination" because it does require the coordination of at least three other jurisdictions; the state, City of Irvine and the county. Chairman Agee then stated that he thought that at the meeting of December 13, 1973 it was decided that the map would say "requires further coor- dination" because the Commission did not want to imply that they would start all over and study it again. Mr. Hogan stated that the word "study" can be removed from the map to read "requires further coordination". -7- YF__ COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF N EWPORiSBEACH vmx x-��m r„ Rnu �ei� x m Z MINUTES rn < o a ro January 10, 1974 ---- -- -- INDEX Chairman Agee then opened the public hearing on this item. Calvin McLaughlin, Corona del Mar stated that re-routing the Corona del Mar Freeway through Bonita Canyon freeway is an essential element of the circulation pattern through Corona del Mar since if one doesn't have this, one will not be able to handle the anticipated traffic flow without other modificiations which would tend to disrupt the character of Corona del Mar. He urged the Commission to go on record as favoring this re-routed freeway per the Consultant's report. In addition, he stated. that he hopes they have read the white paper that he prepared about the general circulation through this area and that it would show them that the Corona del Mar Freeway is a vital} thing that is recognized by the Consultant. There being no others desiring to be heard on this item, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. lotion X Motion that Planning Commission recommend that Ill Ayes- the city adopt the Consultant's recommendation for the Corona del Mar freeway routing through Bonita Canyon. At this point Mr. Seely brought to the attention, of the Commission that Project 7 was not listed in the Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 13, 1973. Chairman Agee stated that he thought the Commission voted on this item and accepted the recommendations of the Consultant (Option 2 which•call-s for the widening of the Coast Highway). The Commission then questioned if there is an interchange proposed. Chairman Agee stated that there was an inter- change proposed at one time. He stated that the interchange was proposed primarily if it tied into a 5th Avenue alignment. He stated that this was the reason for one of the options with an interchange and that it. was not really necessary with no 5th Avenue alignment. -8- COMMISSIONERS ' yG� ^' m m m n c ROLL CALL R` CITY OF N EWPORT O-EACH January 10, 1974 MI?gUtEs INDEX Mr. Seely stated that one of the reasons for Project 21-A, the two-way cuplet, was to avoid some of the problems that would other- wise exist at the interchange of State Highway 73 and Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Seely then asked if the increased traffic capacity of widened Route 73 would increase the problems at the interchange with Pacific Coast Highway to such an extent that Alternate 21-A be given more consideration by the Commission. Mr. Nolan stated that he believes the Study has identified a deficiency and a problem there and that is why the alternate showing an interchange was considered. Planning Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Chairman Agee read Option 2 of Project 7, which is the Consultant's recommendation, for the Commission and audience. ; otion X i Motion to accept the Consultant's recommendation. I Then Mr. Seely stated that on the question of an interchange' at MacArthur and 73 there is a great deal of available space where the zoo use to be, etc. so there is sufficient land to accommodate an interchange with little effect. i Commission discussed some of the deficiencies that would result in not having an interchange. I Mr. Seely felt that because there will be later review and E.I.R.'s etc. and if it appeared that there were some environmental detriments that would offset all of the benefits that might be realized from an'interchange, then it could be easily deleted from the Plan. Mr. Seely stated that to him, Option 3"Seemed to be the far -better alternative and that it might relieve: whatever problems remain by virtue of not having a 5th Avenue bypass and would I -9- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT 9ACH (� m m m Z ^ r `z p p January 10, 1974 unrei m MINUTES -'- INDEX do so with very little impact on Corona del Mar. i i Chairman Agee expressed his disagreement with Mr. Seely because he felt Option 3 was listed primarily to accommodate the 5th Avenue corridor. He felt that the Traffic Consultant would express that if he were at the meeting. He felt that there is no demonstrated need for the interchange. The Commission discussed the fact that this interchange would be financially the state's responsibility. Chairman Agee expressed his regret that the Consultant was not present to defend his position. Mr. Seely felt the concern of the 'residents was that an interchange would make a 5th Avenue bypass more necessary. He stated that this doesn't appear.to be the case and would provide benefits to the whole city as stated by the Consultant. Chairman Agee re -opened the public hearing because the Minutes did not show that a vote was ever taken. Calvin McLaughlin, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that if the Commission could picture in their minds the kind of high -volume interchanges .that are at least 25 feet high, they would have the appropriate mental picture and it would compare with three-story and two-story buildings. He felt it would have an adverse visual effect. He -stated that because of the added expense of building it, the visual impact, and the fact that you are placing high-speed traffic onto the Coast Highway, there is hardly any sense in building another high-speed inter- change. The Commission discussed the reasons they felt the interchange is necessary, discussed the importance of continually -moving traffic and -10- COMPAISSIONERS CIT13 OF NEWPORT WACH qO �^' ➢ m D O ^ January 10, 1974 ROIL CALL r MINUTES INDEX explained that they are not necessarily talking about high-speed interchanges. Mr. Nolan stated that the primary function of the interchange would be to separate the.heavily- conflicting left -turn volume from MacArthur Blvd. southbound onto Coast Highway eastbound. He further stated that the presence or absence of 5th Avenue is irrelevant as far as the major traffic movements are concerned. Chairman Agee felt that because there is a light planned at Avocado which is fairly high on the priority list and a light already in operation at Golden Rod, that it doesn't seem necessary to build an interchange at MacArthur if -people are going to be stopped at Avocado and Golden Rod. There being no others desiring -to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. lotion IX motion to adopt Option 3 for Project 7`I yes X X X X XI of the Circulation Element of the Plan. oes X X _ Chairman Agee stated that it was unfortunate that the Consultant was not present at this meeting. He stated that because of an error in the procedure of the last meeting or in the Minutes, a.major segment of the items they had discussed.at their last meeting had been turned around from the Consultant's report without allowing him to give the logic of his reasoning. The Commission then questioned why the Consultant was not at the meeting. Mr. Hogan answered that it was because he appeared before the Commission earlier and the Commission had adequate opportunity to question him. He further stated that the Consultant's contract did not call for him to be at this meeting and that the Community Development Department didn't have money to pay him for it. Pair. Parker requested that the record show that he did not agree with the Chairman's last � statement and that although he voted with the Chairman, he did so for different reasons. The Commission voiced their disappointment that the Consultant was not present and stated that they had; assumed he would be at the meeting COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORAEACH DG�T"sv m> O*N^ m m 4 s r 2 c Z p p " n January 10, 1974 ROLL CALL MINUTES �rvuz� since this meeting was a continuance of their meeting of December 13, 1973. I Chairman Agee then stated that he felt the best thing to do would be to recommend to the Council that if they have a continued meeting that they have the Consultant there for both stages. Chairman Agee opened the public hearing on the traffic study for items that haven't yet been discussed in this Plan. There being no one desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Mr. Seely stated that he is concerned with the extension of University Drive at the upper end of Newport Bay. He questioned whether or not the necessity of that route warrants the intrusion into a very significant open space and then as it continues over toward Newport Blvd., a residential area. He stated that people could use the Newport Freeway and the Corona del Mar freeway. He felt that this perhaps would be a duplication, and unnecessary to have this proposed major road coming down through that area. Mr. Nolan stated that if one looks at the map, they can see the tremendous hole in the arterial street system that is created by the presence of the upper bay. He stated that 'the, freeway is not a substitute for the local streets that are needed to accommodate local traffic and that the projected volumes that demonstrated the need for University Drive do take into account the presence of the Corona del Mar freeway. Mr. Nolan stated that Mr. Williams, of the Friends of Newport Bay addressed this subject briefly at the previous hearing and indicated that he was not particularly fond of having additional streets such as University Drive bordering on the bay but that he did recognize there was a problem that had to be resolved and that if the use of a street.such as -12- COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT�EACH 2 '° �° m ` MINUTES 2 A " January 10, 1974 one reps m minev University Drive could lessen the need for additional bridge crossings of the bay, then although he may not like it, he would be willing to accept it. Mr. Gunn stated that the staff is also concerned about the potential impact but there is an E.I.R. report budgeted for this segment and that this type of concern is better taken up at the project stage. Mr. Nolan stated that there is money budgeted in this year's budget and i.n fact it will be by far the most comprehensive E.I.R. that has been prepared within the City for a City project. Motion X Motion to delete Projects 28, 29, and 30. Chairman Agee voiced his disagreement with Mr. Seely's motion and again stated that he wished the Consultant could have been at the meeting to speak of the importance of this route. He stated that the Consultant does state quite clearly that this new roadway is very important within 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 the Corona del Mar freeway is substantially delayed. Mr. Nolan stated that westerly of Irvine Avenue the street is known as Del Mar and is located in unincorporated Orange County territory and in the City of Costa Mesa. H-e stated that both of those agencies do project the widening of Del Mar to an arterial standard and that right-of-way acquisition is well advanced for those projects. Mr. Gunn stated that perhaps the Project 30 description, to be consistent with other sections of the report should be eliminated from the report since it is outside of the City limits and our proposed sphere of influence. Mr. Seely discussed that it is difficult for him to accept as a reason f'or adopting this route the fact that the Corona.del Mar freeway may be delayed. -13- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C D O n M m � m v� x m Jc m 2 +^ Z c � m ttni+ ra+i m January 10, 1974 MINUTES --- -- -- influx + The Commission questioned what the projected deficiency would be. Motion X Motioh to delete Projects 28, 29 and 30. Motion Ayes X Failed. Noes X X X X X X Motion to approve the Consultant's recommendation Motion X on Projects 28 and 29 and eliminate Project 30 description. Motion X Substitute motion that the route be approved and Ayes X X be given a Class B priority. Mr. Seely's reason Noes X X X X X being to simply defer the consideration or action on University Drive so at least to give an opportunity for other improvements to be constructed before final action is taken on this proposed route. Motion failed. Motion X Original motion to approve Consultant's recommenda Ayes X X X X X X tion on Projects 28 and 29 and eliminate Project 3 Noes X description. * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Seely then brought up Project 26. He stated that a map of this project appears on page 62 which is the Bison connection between Jamboree and MacArthur. He mentioned that this is given low priority. He stated that he is uncertain as to the need for this as it does deadend essentially on Jamboree with the exception of the residential street coming out of East Bluff and serves only a relatively small area of proposed light industrial. Mr. Seely stated that this particular inter- section of Jamboree and Bison is a substantial problem as it now stands and stated that he doesn't really see why new traffic flow couldn't be served by Ford Road and the northerly intersections. Mr. Nolan stated that the street serves a couple of functions, 1) when it is completed and extended easterly, it will connect to Bonita Canyon Road and that it will provide service from the general overall eastbluff area into the University area and 2) it will provide service to the industrial area north and south of Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. He stated that neither of those industrial properties are. very heavily developed at present. He stated thatstudies that were prepared for _traffic Ae'ronutronic a number -of years 'ago- showed the j COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT•EACH January 10, 1974 ROLL (Motion Motion Ayes X Noes X Motion X Motion Ayes Noes S®©01' X MINUTES critical importance of Bison Avenue. He pointed out that the present Master Plan of Highways carries a major street classification for Bison Avenue (a 6-lane divided street) and the recommended composite plan recommends the reduction to a primary classification which would make it four lanes. He felt that probably the reduction in classification can be defended on the basis that there is not likely to be an interchange with the Corona del Mar freeway at that location. Motion that as an alternative to proposed Project 26 that Bison Road be 2 lanes. The Commission clarified that Mr. Seely's motion is to change Bison Road from the way it is today at 6 lanes and the Consultant's recommendation at 4 lanes and leave it as 2 lanes. The Commission recalled that when .they approved the-P.C. for that area no plan was made to provide a bike trail and that later it was recognized that there was a need for one. The•Commission then questioned if it would be possible at this point in this Element to include that. Mr. Gunn stated that procedurally the Commission would have to hold a public hearing and amend the Master Plan of Bikeways. X Motion that as an alternative to proposed Project 26 that Bison Road be continued to MacArthur in its present configuration which is 2 lanes. Motion failed. Motion for approval as stated in the report. At this time Mr. Gunn pointed out that the report is in error because it'calls it a major road and that it should be a primary road as shown on the map. Motion for approval as stated in the report with change listed above. -15- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPOR14EACH v 2 rn Z q p m m � � '=c Z A A A anti Cei� m January 10, 1974 MINUTES - -- INDEX The Commission questioned what Project 36 does to the 38th Street park. Mr. Gunn replied that the City Council has recently considered this specific project. He further stated that it was one that the staff went back to the Council and asked for clarification on what the Council's policy was on it. Mr. Gunn stated that as he recalls, at that time, the Council wanted to construct the widening of Balboa Boulevard from 44th to Coast Highway and see how that functioned before proceding. Mr. Nolan stated that this is correct. He further stated that the widening.'from 44th to Coast Highway is in the present year's program and, in fact, is going out to bid now. He stated that the Council directed the staff to hold in abeyance any plans for widening from 33rd to 44th. Mr. Gunn stated that widening would take place on the north side where the 38th Street park is located so there would be right-of-way taken from that- park. The Commission, at this time, discussed the possibility of enlarging the park by acquiring property toward the water side to compensate for this loss of park space. Mr. Gunn stated that this consideration was eliminated from the Recreation and Open Space Element. Mr. Gunn then stated that however, within the Recreation and Open Space Element there is a proposal for an additional park at'the extension of'32nd Street which is in this,general area. He added that one of the reasons this proposal was added to what previously was contained in the interim Open Space Plan was the possibility of Balboa Blvd. being widened in the area of the 32nd Street park. He then stated that this was an attempt to arrive at a compromise solution between two conflicting public needs. The Commission then questioned whether this Project should be given a priority higher than a "C". -16- COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF N EWPORT BEACH 0^ v m v O f� m A p MINUTES ROLL CALL r January 10, 1974 Motion X Motion that Project 36 be approved subject All Ayes to the condition that any future widening be accomplished without a net reduction in existing city park facilities in- the general area. Motion X Piotion to adopt Resolution 873 recommending All Ayes approval of the Circulation Element -"of the Nevport Beach'General Plan incorporating -the corrections' discussed earlierland subject to the acceptance of an E.I.R. Item A-2 Discussion - Recommendation of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the City Council on Revision to the Development Standards. Bill Foley then appeared before the Commission to summarize the history of some of the changes that have been made. He stated that the original committee's report was submitted to the Planning Commission at their public hearing. He stated that the Commission made some changes in the parking formulas as it relates to the R2 district, changing basically what was a ecommendation for 3 spaces in any structure up t2400 sq. ft. plus 1 for each additional 600Nsq. ft. to 1 for each additional 400 sq. ft. 4Ae stated that this made the' parking in the R2,�t�3, and the R4 all consistent. He further sated that when the report went on to the City�Council, they referred it back to the Citizens %Qmmittee. The Citizens Committee has now recomm(N-,ded that the parking requirement be changed back 't6,3 spaces up to 2400.sq. ft. and 1 additional sp ce for each 600 sq. ft. He stated that the otherrNchange that the Commission originally made was in"tt e open space option, it was originally the heig,pt times 'the width times 5 ft. in West Newport and Balboa Peninsula and 71, feet in Corona del Mar.+ He stated that the Commission changed that to 6,�ft. across the board and restricted it to thq front 12 feet of the structure. He stated t'`hat the Citizens Committee concurred with then lanning Commission action at that time. He the stated that the third item that the, Council refe red back to the Committee was the question of f e limitation on the number of stories. He stated the Citizens Committee concurred with their original recommendations amd the Commission's recommendations so the'only area that there is a difference now between the -1 COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF ,q yEWPORT OACH G1 n D m p� m r Z < Z P '° p ROLL CALL M January 17, 1974 MINUTES encourage a wide range of housing choices." Motion failed. Motion X Motion was made that the paragraph under Time Phase All Ayes on Page 15 be changed to read: "The Open Housing Ordinance will be adopted as soon as possible but in no event later than December 1974." Motion carried. Motion X ion was made that the paragraph under Action Ayes X X X X X X on a 16 be changed to read: "In view of the Noes X region nature of the problem of providing ade- quate to and moderate -cost housing, the City of Newport Bea will cooperate with the Orange Count Housing Autho 'ty. Also, the City will be respon- sive to recogni d groups or'organizations quali- fied to advise it ncerning ways in which it too may assist directly this local,regional, state and national problem." otion carried. Motion X Planning Commission approve the Housing Element All Ayes of the Newport Beach General n as amended above, subject to the acceptance of an vironmental Impact Report, and adopted Resolute No. 874 recommending that the City Council a t the Housing Element of the Newport Beach Ge ral Plan. Motion carried. Motion X Motion was made that consideration of the Envi - All Ayes mental Impact Report on the Housing Element of th Newport Beach General Plan be continued to the meeting of February 7, 1974. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Planning Commission discussed conflicting actions taken on December 13, 1973 and January 10, 1974 in connection with a part of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan pertaining to a segment of Coast Highway between MacArthur Boule- Vard and Jamboree Road with the possibility of an interchange at MacArthur Boulevard and Coast High- way. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made that all Ayes X X X X actions taken in connection with that portion of Noes X X X the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan pertaining to Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road with the possibility of an interchange at MacArthur Boule- Page 15. COMMISSIONERS L 9G1 ^ D D O f� m m m a m i Z z r A ROLL CALL t ` CITY OF NEWPJRTOEA,_ri January 17. 1074 MINUTES ' vard and Coast Highway be rescinded and that Resolution No. 875 be adopted setting a public hearing for February 7, 1974 at the hour of 7:00 P.M., to reconsider said portion of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. I9HDEX ' tion X Commissioner Heather requested and received Al Ayes permission to be excused from the afternoon portion of the Planning Commission meeting of February 7, 1974. Motion X There being no further business, Planning Commission All Ayes adjourned the meeting. Time: 10:05 P.M. JOSEPH ROSENER, JR., Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 16. COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF N EWPORT 4?E4CH m o m Dl x rn =c Zx p a ROLL CALL MINUTES Pak"irnvv 7 1Q74 Itkincy , Item B-1 Request to reconsider a portion of the Circulation Element of the General Plan pertaining to the PROJECT 7 IRCULA- TION LEMENT segment of East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road with the possibility ADOPTED of an interchange at MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Al Krier with Voorhees & Associates, Traffic Consultants, appeared before the Planning Commis- sion and presented a brief review of the planning process which resulted in the conclusions related to traffic on Coast Highway and other portions of the City. He advised that in connection with the segment of East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, there were three alternatives proposed. One alternative was to increase East Coast Highway to six lanes, another alternative was the interchange at East Coast High- way and MacArthur Boulevard, and the third alter- native was a one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado between East Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. The alternatives were discussed, including the need for signalization; visual impact of a interchange at MacArthur and East Coast Highway and comparison of same with the interchange at West Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard; probable lack of public support on the best technical solution; traffic volumes and deficiencies which the various alternatives would provide; diversion of traffic around Newport Beach; the importance of the Corona del Mar link in the road system; and the possible over- estimation of the traffic situation in light of the present fuel shortage. J. R. Blakemore, Vice President and Director of Municipal Affairs for the Harbor View Hills Community Association, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission and recommended that the action of December 13, 1973 adopting Option 2 for Project 7 be reaffirmed since this is what the public desires and seems to be the best solution at the present time. If this should prove inadequate, the City could then consider an inter- change at a later date. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT41EACH 2 9 m 5 A rt C� m m m �i 2 Z Z P A a enu rn„ m February 7, 1974 MINUTES Robert Sanchis, citizen of Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to any interchange at MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway as it would be visually undesirable, would encourage more traffic, and stated that technical solutions.are not people solutions. Michael Gering, representing the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado, thus eliminating the problem of an interchange. John Carson, 2921 Setting Sun, Harbor View Hills, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of Option 2 for Project 7 as adopted on December 13, 1973. Russ Greengard, President of Broadmbor Hills Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the interchange. Russell Server, President Cameo Community Associa- tion, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed opposition to any change on East Coast Highway. • Wallace Calderhead, Corona del Mar, questioned the number of people represented by the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce and also the Cameo Community Association. Walter Kerper, Cameo Shores, appeared before the Planning Commission to answer Mr. Calderhead, advising that the Association favored the 5th Ave-_ nue by-pass. Calvin McLaughlin, resident of Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and commented that the best technical solutions were not necessarily the best for the City. Larry Moore, Associate Director, Planning Adminis- tration, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and commented on a very length letter written by The Irvine Company regarding their position on the traffic. study. Although it may not be possible to implement the best technical solution, the City should take a good look at the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado. COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT WEACH A I m 5 ^ s Z �� x 70 ' Qr,1: rni, m February 7, 1974 ^AINUTEs Margaret Butt, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and commented on construc- tion of Promontory Point and Jasmine Creek which will add to the traffic problems of Corona del Mar and the need for an increase in the Police Depart- ment and additional parks in the City. Dr. Nichols appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado and commented on the interchange and six lanes of traffic on East Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. .Bob Sanborn, President of Harbor View Hills Community Association, appeared before the Commis- sion and commented that construction of an inter- change, increasing 5th Avenue and doing anything to encourage the Corona del Mar Freeway into the area would be serving other people than those residents of Newport Beach. Paul Hummel, 416 Heliotrope, Corona del Mar, appea ed before the Planning Commission in opposition to th interchange and the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado and in favor of leaving East Coast Highway as is. Charles Hill, resident of Harbor View Hills, appeared before the Planning Commission and com- mented on solutions to traffic problems implemente by other cities. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission discussed the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado but were advised that no action could be taken on same as that segment was not a part of the advertised public hearing. Chairman Agee commented on the fact that the best technical solutions were not always ',the best solutions for the people in the community and, Motion X therefore, motion was made that Option 2 for Project 7 be adopted as part of the Circulation Element of the General Plan (i.e., widening of East Coast Highway to six lanes from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road.) Discussion of the motion included the thought that interchanges do not have to be of such a large scale as to be visually objectionable; that the COMMISSIONERS w CITY OF NEWPORTOSEACH 9 m 2 2 q p fi m m m yw c ? a a ROLL CALLm February 7. 1974 MINUTES INDEX motion was not necessarily the best solution but seemed to be the desire of the people; retaining an open option on the one-way couplet; reconsider- ation of an interchange but with a•low priority; and the fact that any action taken does not pre- clude amendments to the Circulation Element at Ayes X X X some future time. Following discussion,,the motio Noes X X X X was voted on and failed. Motion X Motion was made that Project 7 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan be adopted to include the widening of East Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road to six lanes as pre- viously acted on by the Commission but that the interchange be adopted and be assigned last priori y because of the significant cost involved and the desire to see what development of surrounding traffic arteries will occur and to what extent they will relieve the situation. Motion X An amendment to the motion was made that in addi- Ayes X X X X X tion, an identification of the one-way couplet be Noes X X established as a part of the General Plan, said one-way couplet to'be an alternate and to be given further study as soon as the staff is in a positio to advise amount of land and the p-roblems that are involved in preserving the alternative. Ayes X X X X X Vote was then taken on the above motion made by Noes X X Commissioner Seely which carried. Planning Commission recessed at 9:35 P.M. and reconvened at 9:45 P.M. CHANGES TO CITY MAS. STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN Change Deleted - sec. Deleted - sec. Upgrade fr. sec. to pri. Deleted Sec. Upgrade fr. pri. to maj. Added pri. Added pri. Upgrade fr. pri. to maj. Downgrade fr. frwy. to maj. Downgrade fr. maj. to pri. Upgrade fr. sec. to pri. Upgrade fr. sec. to pri. Added pri. Upgrade fr. pri. to maj. Deleted pri. Connected to Avocado Downgrade fr pri. to sec. Added pri. Street 32nd Street Lafayette - 28th 15th Street Santa Ana - Beacon - Riverside University Dr. From To Bal. Seashore (Prof) 32nd Newport Blvd. Superior Coast Highway Coast Highway 'Del May, Irvine Jamboree Rd. Bristol Jamboree Univ. Dr. No. Von Karmon MacArthur Campus Drive MacArthur Campus Drive Univ. Dr. No. MacArthur Univ. Dr. No. Coast Hwy. Bison Santa Cruz Santa Rosa San Miguel Newport Center Avocado New MacArthur Spy Glass Hill Rd. Unnamed Road Jamboree Bonita Can. San Joaquin Hills Newport Center Rd. Drive San Joaquin Newport Center Hills Rd. Drive Avocado Newport Center Drive Full Length Newport Center Drive San Miguel San Joaquin MacArthur Avocado MacArthur San Joaquinn Hills .Rd. 5th Ave. extend.San Joaquinn Hills' Rd. Coast Hwy. Unnamed Road Deleted Sec 5th Avenue .0 0 A 1,A Change Street Deleted Sec. Marguerite Upgrade fr. Coast Highway pri. to maj. Upgrade fr. Coast Highway pri. to pri. mod. Upgrade fr. Coast Highway pri. to maj. Upgrade fr. Coast Highway pri. to pri. mod. Deleted Coast Frwy. Upgraded fr. Balboa Blvd. sec. to pri. Deleted Sec. N-S unnamed red e'ly of Newport Shrac_ From To Coast Highway Ocean Blvd. W'ly Bndry. Newport Blvd. Newport Blvd. Dover Dr. Dover Dr. MacArthur MacArthur E'lv. Bndry. Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Balboa Blvd. A 'Nl A MODIFICATIONS TO COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS Changes Street From To Delete Lafayette - 28th 32nd Newport Blvd. Upgrade fr. Balboa Blvd. C. H. Newport Blvd. sec. to pri. Alignment Balboa Blvd. C. H. 15th Upgrade for 15th Street Superior Coast Hwy. Sec. to Pri. Pri. Added 17th Street Newport Blvd. Balboa Blvd. Deleted Beacon -Riverside Santa Ana Coast Hwy. Deleted Irvine Ave. Cliff Dr. Coast Hwy. Deleted Santa Ana 17th Street Newport Blvd. Upgrade fr. Univ. Dr. (Del Mar) Newport Blvd. MacArthur pri. to maj. Downgrade Bristol Jamboree W'ly fr. maj. to pri. Downgrade fr. Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Dover maj. to pri. mod. Upgrade fr. Santa Cruz San Joaquin Ring Road sec. to pri. Upgrade fr. Santa Rosa San Joaquin Ring Road sec. to pri. Added Pri. San Miguel Avocado Ring Road Downgrade fr. Bison Jamboree E'ly maj. to pri. Deleted MacArthur Blvd. C. H. Bonita Canyon Freeway (CdM Frwy) shown as maj. Show as study New MacArthur Ford Road Bonita Canyon rt. Deleted Marguerite C. H. Ocean Blvd. Deleted 5th Avenue C. H. Canyon Crest Changes Upgrade fr. sec. to pri. Upgrade pri. to maj. Add pri. Upgrade fr. sec. to maj. Upgrade fr. pri. to pri. mod. Add pri. •Upgrade fr. pri. to maj. Street Canyon Grest MacArthur Von Karmon Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Bristol Newport Blvd. From To C. H. SJHR Bonita Canyon Jamb MacArthur Campus Harbor Bay MacArthur B.C.L. A .40 r Jamb Univ. Dr. No. 30th C. H. COUNCILMEN CA OF NEWPORT B&CH MINUTES 13 1z Motion Ayes itinFx T xxxxxxx a x r'eoruar as iyrq The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 A. M. to 7:30 P. M. , February 28, 1974 to hold a public hearing regarding adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport_Be ch General Plan; review of the Newport Beach Traffic Study, Phase III; and acceptance of—Environmerital_Impa`c£�2eport ti -- G an Circulat Element EIR/NB 73-045. Volume 28 - Page 65 R,21.: COO 0 . 11 a A:��°,y4 � . �p� �ti� ! ir'Lwieli✓J'• .Ck'..�Tetl.� :n:n5"1�'f �•,.+Pg;.sty,:,�,.MyS:i,Fi'•y'-=:-:`K-�. � •. ��' � � •eta y .: 4e5 A �e�rrG%'"µ •'a, CORONA dcl MhR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE C+ (AONA :ar II%R, CA11FORNIA farnn- /o-��w, fs.a i ..q,✓rt d+:Acu- n LC' nt. caarn Man.•. /VGl,l�rpr� February 15, 1974 The Honorable Mayor Donald McInnis and members of the City Council City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: Newport Beach Transportation Gentlemen: cl,i i( FES' 0 197 'ni NEWpoRr B F 4+ CALIF, ��y' The board of directors of the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce, at a regularly scheduled meeting 'on c.rymW-) a,'.rrar February 13, 1974, took under consideration the fol- lowing portions of the Newport Beach Transportation LAuuun $OA4 . Study affecting the Corona del Mar area. 1. In our view the proposed multilevel interchange at Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boule- vard would have an immediate detrimental effect upon businesses in that area,in that it would tower above their store fronts and obscure their location from the shopping public plus causing a greater level of noise pollution in their establishments because of said elevation. The requirement for an interchange of the pro- �„ 1 _k posed type at this location standing alone is ¢ seriously questioned in light of the fact that 0" existing and proposed stop lights within a S short distance of each end of the interchange on Pacific Coast Highway would seem to present traffic blockage no less severe than presently exists. It would appear that this interchange might be intended as a first step of express- `„, way development through Corona del Mar, to which we are opposed. 2. We further believe the proposed restriction •t of parking .on Pacific Coast Highway would SSA/ o,sro have a detrimental effect on each and every business establishment in Corona del Mar as }i J, as well as create a potentially aggravating inconvenience to the shopping public. We urge you to reject this proposal. fCM E, Coast HiRheray . r.o. Bo 72 Y Corona del Pofar, Galifornia 92825 a a,ug •>ar• rc �` ' iA.l , �. ��,;��.+.i 4' 6:dr�. " 1 ,vi.ir...: 'A :''(' % o`4d'f+i :1 .' ^ha�''f�,. w:� .., ms.;, .. A,S�° 33r4�1f.,»,t REM�VE h Fi,om tlfc Office of City Clerk TODAY'S MAIL Date: FEfI 101974 Attn: ""$V 'f page 2 - Newport Beach Transportation Study 3. Additionally, we are proud to add our voices to thousands of our neighbors, friends and customers who call for the defeat of the so called "Fifth Avenue bypass" as a possible traffic solution in Corona del Mar. Such a roadway will not bypass our community but will, in fact, bisect it and divide our residents even more than does the present Pacific Coast Highway . The impact of the various noise and air pollutants which would result from such a thoroughfare is something we believe should not be borne by the business people and residents of our community. We therefore respectflally request that you concur in the Planning Commission's recommendation to reject the proposed Fifth Avenue rerouting of the Pacific Coast Highway. 4. Finally, we recommend favorable consideration of rerouting the Corona del Mar freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway via the proposed Bonita Canyon route since we consider this route to be a true bypass which would remove unwanted and unneeded traffic from the streets of Corona del Mar. The directors were in unanimous agreement on the foregoing. Very truly yours, Robert F. Stoessel President CORONA DEL MAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RFS: j h Deie.E i«I ...7..9... 19. — COPIES SENT TO: ❑ Mayor mNnnogeK ❑ Allbrney puhlie Norke Ulreeto; UI COW ❑ Cooaclloroa 5.I v COUNCILMEN 9��� O� P N N Fogcm%A y0 o ROLL CALL T� pm N v� pm CAY OF NEWPORT BETCH Februar 11, 1974 MINUTES S INDEX Motion Ayes x x x x x x x C I%ZCKLgTIb A] 2. The '"r- sr * tion Element of the General Plan was General Plan set for public hearing at 7:30 P. M. on February -LB, Absent x 1974. Motion x 3. City Council Policy Statement F-1, "Deposit, With- polic Ayes x x x x x x drawal and Investment of Funds, " was amended as St ement Absent x recommended by staff. 4. Mayor Pro Tem Rogers appointment of Marilyn Bicycle Motion x Hendrickson as an alternate member on the Bic y e Trails Ayes x x x x x x Trails Citizens Advisory Committee to replac Mary Citizens Absent x Hanley was confirmed. Adv Cmte Motion x The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 P. Ayes xxxx xx Absent x Volume 28 - Page 51 DOLE �® V DO 'NOT REMOVE COUNCILMEN PC,��t 9c Znp N N� O (t�,py Gy P ROLL CALL T v N N C( 0 CIR OF NEWPORT BE?CH February 11. 1974 MINUTES 13. !z INDEX authorizing execution of an amendment to the off - site parking agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Rolly Pulaski & Associated, Inc. for boa Inn, was adopted. CONSENT CAL AR: Motion x The following items we approved by one motion affirming Ayes x x x x x x the actions on the Consent lendar: Absent x 1. The following resolution was opted: Resolution No. 8195 designating one ay streets in Cannery Cannery Village (portions of 30th and 3 t Street). (A Village report from the Public Works Director wa resented.) One-way Strs R-8195 Z. The following communications were referred as indicated: Referred to staff for inclusion in Transportation Plan Trans - study, letters from Spencer Crump and Irvine Terrace portation Community Association favoring a bypass of the Plan Corona del Mar segment of Coast Highway. Referred to the Planning Commission for inclusion in General study on General Plan, letter from Eastbluff Home- Plan owners Community Association opposing the draft Circulation Element of the General Plan. Referred to the Pending Legislation Committee, reso- OrCo lution of the City of San Juan Capistrano recognizing Health action of the Orange County Health Planning Council Ping relating to Resolution No. 73-11-26-3. Council ferred to Pending Legislation Committee, resolution Pres oft City of San Clemente expressing dissatisfaction Nixon's and disap oval and voicing opposition to certain Property action as take the Orange County Board of Super- Appraisal visors requesting a Board of Equalization to con- duct a special appraisa evaluation for property taxation valuation purposes he President Richard Nixon residence and parcel in the ity of San Clement Referred to Pending Legislation Committe reso- Police & lution of the City of Seal Beach opposing Asse Firemen Constitutional Amendment 67 (which would amend t house rule provisions of the California Constitution to take away from local government and give to the Legislature ultimate authority to provide procedures for hiring, promotion, discipline and dismissal of policemen and firemen in charter and general law cities). Volume 28 - Page 46 IFOLE ell �J i" DO NOT REMO COUNCILMEN p�"F;p\US oN �p ?i '0 N.1 O ROLL CALL V; (9� im CI4PY OF NEWPORT BICH Fehriiary 11. 1974 MINUTES INDEX Referred to Pending Legislation Committee, reso- Regional lution of the City of Yorba Linda supporting a corn- Trans- prehensive regional transportation study and plan for portation Orange County and its surrounding area. Plan 3. The following communications were referred to the City Clerk for filing and inclusion in the records: Letter from Assessment & Treatment Services Center expressing appreciation for the attention given their presentation on January 28. Letter addressed to Mayor McInnis from Daniel S. Residen- Connelly protesting the parking standards in the new tial building standards discussed on January 28. Developmt Standards League of California Cities Legislative Bulletin dated February 1, 1974. Copy of letter to Coastal Zone Conservation Com- mission from Mrs. Howard S. Babb appealing a dredging permit in Newport Harbor. Copy of letter to the Daily Pilot from Gary B. Lovell Animal in connection with the impoundment of animals. Impoundmt Letter from Orange County Sanitation Districts re- Water garding advanced wastewater treatment at Plant No. 2. Quality Control Letter from Local Agency Formation Commission LAFCO regarding procedures to be taken by the Commission on hearings involving spheres of influence for cities and special districts. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors reaffirming its CdM Fwy position of supporting the expeditious completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway. Resolution of the City of Yorba Linda supporting the Or Co improvements and orderly growth of the Ontario Regional International Airport. Airport Excerpt from Minutes of Board of Supervisors meeting OrCo of January 29 in connection with appointment of study Regional task force regarding the feasibility of using Ontario Airport International Airport. Excerpt from Minutes of Board of Supervisors meeting St Park of January 29 showing resolution of City of Newport Beach Beach approving the proposed priority list of projects Priorities Volume 28 - Page 47 THE SCAMLauS 453 Seaward Rd. Comn Del Mar, Calif. 921M Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to you in the hopes that you can help to deter the gross over— development of the land in the Newport —Corona area. Specifically, I would like to know if anything is being done to prohibit the Irvine Corporation_ from constructing any more housing gluts like Promontory Point and Spyglass Hill. They Have overdeveloped this land past the maximuz density that should be permitted anywhere. Consider the "Mediterranean Villager on the Cbast Highway, They could not plant enough trees to disguise the fact that its simply too large for the lard that it is built on! The people in the Mediterranean live that way because they are poor and unable to afford better housing.' And what of Spyglass Hill? Certainly someone has made a fortune in this development and yet what has it profited the city? Using the land in this manner will result in having to enlarge our water system, our sewage system, our police departmeni end fire department. It will mean new schools, aided taxes, traffic congestion. I realize the Irvine Corporation is very rich and influential, but if you permit them to carve up small pieces of their land holdings and slowly transform every area of open space into a housing development, soon this area will no longer be a desirable place to live. Perhaps you have already taken steps to prevent this, other areas of the stste have. If you have rot, however, please give it some considoration. Sincerely yours, V d, 7 COMMISSIONERS O CITY OF NEWPORT B41ACH i P p A ROLL CALL ^' MINUTES reoruar i iv/4 INuex to reconsider a portion of the CirculationElement VitemB-1Request of the General Plan pertaining to the segment of East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road with the,possibility of an Interchange at MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway, ADOPTED Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Al Krier with Voorhees & Associates, Traffic Consultants, appeared before the Planning Commis- sion and presented a brief review of the planning process which resulted in the conclusions related to traffic on Coast Highway and other portions of the City. He advised that in connection with the segment of East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, there were three alternatives proposed. One alternative was to increase East Coast Highway to six lanes, another alternative was the interchange at East Coast High- way and MacArthur Boulevard, and the third alter- native was a one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado between East Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. The alternatives were discussed, including the need for signalization; visual impact of a interchange at MacArthur and East Coast Highway and comparison of same with the interchange at West Coast Highway and -Newport Boulevard; probable lack of public support on the best technical solution; traffic volumes and deficiencies which the various alternatives would provide; diversion of traffic around',NeWport Beach; the importance of the Corona -del Mar link In the road system; and the possible over- estimation of the traffic situation in light of the present fuel shortage. J. R. Blakemore, Vice President and Director of Municipal Affairs for the Harbor View Hills Community Association, appeared before the Plan- ning Commission and recommended that the action of December 13, 1973 adopting Option 2 for Project 7 be reaffirmed since this is what the public desires and seems to be the best solution at the present time. If this should prove inadequate, the City could then consider an inter- change at a later date. FILE CCP� Page 9. DO NOT REMOVE COMMISSIONERS + CITY OF NEWPORT RACW `" f 9Sym Z MINUTES Fabruary 7. 1974 - Robert Sanchis, citizen of Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to any interchange at MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway as it would be visually undesirable, would encourage more traffic, and stated that technical solutions are not people solutions. Michael Gering, representing the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado, thus eliminating the problem of an interchange. John Carson, 2921 Setting Sun, Harbor View Hills, appeared before the Planning Commission in favor of Option 2 for Project 7 as adopted on December 13, 1973. Russ Greengard, President of Broadmoor Hills Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the interchange. Russell Server,•President Cameo Community Associa- tion, appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed opposition to any change on East Coast Highway. Wallace Calderhead, Corona del Mar, questioned the number of people represented by the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce and also the Cameo Community Association. Walter Kerper, Cameo Shores, appeared before the Planning Commission to answer Mr. Calderhead, advising that the Association favored the 5th Ave- nue by-pass. Calvin McLaughlin, resident of Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and commented that the best technical solutions were not necessarily the best for the City. Larry Moore, Associate Director, Planning Adminis- tration, The Irvine Company, appeared before the Planning Commission and commented on a Very length letter written by The Irvine Company regarding their position on the traffic study. Although it may not be possible to implement the best technical solution, the City should take a good look at the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado, Page 10. COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES. ROLL CALL ^ February 7, 1974 INOEX r Margaret'Butt, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and commented on construc- tion of Promontory Point and Jasmine Creek which will add to the traffic problems of Corona del Mar and the need for an increase in the Police Depart- ment and additional parks in the City. Dr. Nichols appeared before the Planning Commissio in opposition to the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado and commented on the interchange and six lanes of traffic on East Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. Bob Sanborn, President of Harbor View Hills Community Association, appeared before the Commis- sion and commented that construction of an inter- change, increasing 5th Avenue and doing anything to encourage the Corona del Mar Freeway into the area would be serving other people than those residents of Newport Beach. Paul Hummel, 416 Heliotrope, Corona del Mar, appea ed before the Planning Commission in opposition to the. interchange and the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado and in favor of leaving East Coast Highway as is. Charles Hill, resident of Harbor View Hills, appeared before the Planning Commission and com- mented on solutions to traffic problems implemente by other cities. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission discussed the one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado but were advised that no action could be taken on same as that segment was not a part of the advertised public hearing. Chairman Agee commented on the fact that the best technical soluti.ons were not always the best solutions for the people in the community and, Motion X therefore, motion was made that Option 2 for Project 7 be adopted as part of the Circulation Element of the General Plan (i.e., widening of East Coast Highway to six lanes from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road.) Discussion of the motion included the thought that interchanges do not have to be of such a large scale as to be visually objectionable; that the Page 11. COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT NACW Z v�m,y f+ m A A A onn f`AII m February 7. 1974 MINUTES iwnFr motion was not necessarily the best solution but seemed to be the desire of the people; retaining an open option on the one-way couplet; reconsider= ation of an interchange but with a low priority; and the fact that any action taken does not pre- clude amendments to the Circulation Element at Ayes X X X some future time. Following discussion, the motio Noes X X X X was voted on and failed. Motion X Motion was made that Project 7 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan be adopted to include the widening of East Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road to six lanes as pre- .vioutly acted on by the Commission but that the interchange be adopted and be assigned last priori y because of the significant cost involved and the desire to see what development of surrounding traffic arteries will occur and to what extent they will relieve the situation. Motion X An amendment to the motion was made that in addi- Ayes X X X X X tion, an identification of the one -Way couplet be Noes X X established as a part of the General Plan, said one-way couplet to be an alternate and to be given further study as soon as the staff is in a positio to advise amount of land and the problems that are involved in preserving the alternative. Ayes X X X X X Vote was then taken on the above motion made by Noes X X Commissioner Seely which carried. Planning Commission recessed at 9:35 P.M. and reconvened at 9:45 P.M. Item B-2 Request consider acceptance of Environmental EIR/NB Impact Re o No. EIR NB 73-042 in connection 73-042 with The Housi Element of the Newport Beach ACCEPTED General Plan. Initiated by: The City Newport Beach Planning Commission reviewed th nvi,ronmental Impact Report and noted that the w0 "sex" should be inserted in the last line of sub -pa raph f) under Supporting Policies on Page 4. Page 12. • 6 Planning Commission Meeting CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 5, 1974 TO: Planning Commission 13.15 February 7, 1974 Item No. B-1 FROM: Community Development Department SUBJ: Request to reconsider a portion of the Circulation Element of the General Plan pertaining,to the segment of East Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road with the possibility of an interchange at MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway. The Planning Commission at their December 13, 1973 meeting took action to approve the Traffic Consultant's recommendations for Coast Highway between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. However, at a continued public hearing on January 10, 1974 it was brought to the Commission's attention that this action was not listed in the Minutes. The Commission directed the staff to listen to the tapes to confirm whether or not the Commission had taken any previous action. At the January 10, 1974 meeting the Commission again considered this particular segment of Coast Highway in the event they had not taken any previous action. The Commission recommended that an interchange be constructed at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway. At the January 17, 1974 meeting the staff informed the Commission that they had confirmed the fact that the Commission had taken action at the December 13, 1973 meeting and that this action had been inadvertently left out of the Minutes. In a memo dated January 11, 1974 from the City Attorney's Office to the Planning Commission, the Assistant City Attorney advised the Commission that the action taken at the meeting of January 10, 1974 was invalid. The Commission, at the January 17, 1974 meeting, then took action to rescind all previous actions pertaining to Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road and adopted Resolution No. 875 setting a public hearing for February 7, 1974 to reconsider this particular portion of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The Traffic Consultant will be at the public hearing to answer any questions the Commission may have. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By Kid G - Rodney L. Gunn Advance Planning Administrator RLG:jmb DO NOT REMOVE January 30, 157+ 1•3yOr Donald A. Mc_TnniS Members of the City Cou City of NlaTlport Beach `JL Sry Lear 2•1ayor li^.Inni s and kembers of the City Council: +• December r of In a letter dared D..c..moer 21, 1973, ii. Gordon B. Janes s,.� out the Irvine Company's (TIC) viers of the report by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. on the Circulation Element of the We"aport Beach General Plan. This report contains a number of errors both of fact and inter- pretation which will, perhaps, not be clear to anyone -rho read the abbrev- iated versions published in the niewspapers. Therefore, we have prepared a point by point analysis of this letter setting forcra-rd the true situation to the best of our knowledge. In the fo11o,•rirg analysis we will refer U..e _3 to the page and paragraph number of the Irvine Company's letter. 'r'"l'•�O:a.. Page 1, paragraph 1- "•.r" This TIC letter purports to be an analysis of the final traffic study I "N -report prepared by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. However, this ,, i y w r h } j 'X ,•nunhq Utceulo" 1et.er introduces no nr:r facts which were not known to t_ie cor_su_tant � , irhen 'r_e prepared his report and to us when ore prepared our white paper � uy analysing the need for the Fifth Avenue Express;•ray (January 14, 1974). -� Cuuncd?�] Page 1, paragraph 2- The Irvine Company believes the transportation system should "be a public service element w'nich enhar_ces the ability of the community to thrive and prosper in a pleasant environment under a planned program of physical. and economic o oath and development". Tie too believe the transportation system should be a public service element and belie ,re in planning , but we insist that the planning be dope for the good of'the citizens of Corona del biar and eiewport Beach not just one corporation. ffe would hope that the city General Plan orhich aims to preserve and improve the total quality of life would, be the determining factor. Thus, we insist that the trans- portation plan realistically take into account the internal forces ,rhich are leading to a more reasonable level of development and the external develop- ments such as the energy crisis which will influence the level of traffic to 1990. Pa3e 1, paragraph 3- 1,1r. Jones states that the recor,mer_dations of the consultant's report are based more on public acceptance than on the original goal of meeting identified' traffic nyeds. In fact, the consultant conducted a very careful study baae,d on 13 separate cor_siderations of which only one was public acceptance and support. In the Voorhees report, pages 10-15 cover these points. o'_', publi ,' support cartalnly should be the key critsri on of any traffic s t,.ily because who but the citizens should decide orhat Pi r_i of a city they :rant to live in. For this reason, mo'iern planning al:..wys has public :ptan•_e as "lid key criterion. The consultant's contract stated that, pub?.ic ),�*e F)tsa ee uas to be the most important si nGle design criterion. The 'time iz lojj,; plot ifhen a group of "experts" could ride roughshod over L!te _.':sires of the people of a city like Newport Bsa::h. DO 'NOT REMOVE 2 Purely technical solutions to problems are obsolete. Nhat if a.1 fir Trans-cortation 6tutr were conducted that aimed solely at the b=_= sechnical solution to meet arojected air traffic desires to 1990. Obvio--a_y the best technical solution ,•rould be the expansion of the Orange County Airport with a vast increase in daily landings and departures. This increase in noise and pollution, however, would not be acceptable to the citizens of Ne,•rport Beach. Thus, purelly technical solutions are often no solutions at all. Page 2, paragraph 2- !,LT. Jones tries to intimate that the traffic load figures should be increased because there will not be adequate public transportation through Co-rora del Dar. However, the consultant's report did not take account, in any quantitative way, of increases in public transportation which might be expected between now and 1990. The -report does point out, on page 35, that if such public transportation were to operate it could greatly -reduce traffic through the coastal corridor. We note that at present the Orange County Transit District is removing almost 4 hundred cars a day from the Coast Highway through Corona del Mar and , by si-naly increasing the scheduled frequency of buses, can remove several thousand more. This sort of bus transportation has proved to be very cost ef='ective in a low density area such as ours and effectively reduces the load on roads. This transit.solution, which used the present road network is a more practical answer than the more expensive exclusive bus - lane transit or fixed -rail transit previsions taken as examples in Mr. Jones unrealistic discussion. The fact is that the extent of mass transportation through the Corona del Max area projected to 1990 is arknoem, but thoughtful citizens without an axe to grind believe that it will certainly increase dramatically over what is presently available. The reason is basically related to the fuel shortage which -rill become acute by -the year 1990. Mass transit alternatives are more fuel efficient than private cars. Foxvrard-looking planning must recognize future condittons and plan accordingly. Page 2, paragraph 3- Mr. Jones states that all of the traffic on the Newport Beach transportation system is essentially the same, having an origin or destination oz••both within '_•temwport Beach. Page 21 of the consultant's Phase Ii report gives the link analysis for the proposed Fifth Avenue Express*•ray. The facts are clearly shc,•m to be different. Essentially, all of the traffic on this link originates or terminates downcoa.st, that is, outside of Pfeupo-rt Beach. Thus, this is not a local traffic Toad. Note that this link analysis was done assuming the existence of the Bonita Canyon Freeway. If the Bonita Canyon Freeway ,•rare not to be built,the Fifth Aver_ue L-cpress- ;11a.y link would carry all of the through freeway traffic. Titus, Fifth Avenue traffic is not a 1cca1 Corona del I.a^ problem. in fact, it is almost impossible for local traffic to use the proposed express: -ray in Corona del Max be -Muse so fe;r access -routes are planned for the•?ifth Avenue link. If tha route is recessed west of Marguerite as suggested by TIC, there v.c;uld be no a-cess between MacAxthi.ur and the City limits. The other conclusion from the Fifth Avenue link analysis is that a substantial portion, of this traffic is bound for the Irvine Company development at Fashion_ i_=and. 3 Page 2, para� mDlel 4- c- An alternative five concepti on Of ffe?•rport Beach as a "m',tuve co.:muni ty" would be that it ceases to be a. "Coast Fii.ghuay toi4n". Tn this desirable model, traffic is routed around the city limits as in L•a. Jolla, Carmel, and as _olannei for Del Nia.r. Page 3, poragraph 1- Ater. Jones correctly implies that one reason the roars in 11eLvport Beach can handle considerably more traffic load than their nominal capacity is the .tact that the rush hour is spread out more than in most co_mmur_ities_ He believes that this will cease to operate in the future. We believe that it will operate even more strorg17 in the future. The reason that the rush hour will be spread out as it relates to Corona del Aar traffic is simply that most ofthe citizens in Corona del Mar don't have 8 to 5 jobs. Miry of these are professional people who have their own hours or businessmen -...rho have other than 8 to 5 hours. The number of people who are employed at, let us say, factories and plants is a relatively small proportion of the total. Since the factories and plants are located considerably inland it ,rill be convenient for many of these people to take the new Bonita Canyon Freeway instead of the idacArthur Boulevard -Coast Highway route. Additionally, the energy crisis may force this sector of the economy to stagger working hours. Thus, in the future the rush hour on Coast Highway should remain diffuse; enabling the street to carry con- siderably more than its nominal capacity. Page 3, paragraph 2- �7r. Jones alleges that the consultant failed to correctly compute the traffic resulting from future developments within Ne?•iport Beach. Whatever theoretical 1990 population is on the planning books, it is our observation that "zoned..... land use" has proved to be subject to increasing deflation in our city. On the other hand, Aar. Jones believes that the consultant correctly calculated the traffic generation for areas outside RTeL•rport Beach. Since the link analysis for the fifth Avenue ExTress:ray shows traffic origins outside of Newport Beach this means that the consultant's figures are correct by Air. Jones calculations. The consultant stated at the Planning Commission hearing that his final report reflected practically no deficiencies on Coast Higr,;ray through Corona del Fdar. Thus, there is no need for a ?i£th Aver -lie E:cpressir-ay. Page 3, paragraph 3- The Irvine Company states that they did not give intentionally high estimates of land use do:;alcoast to the consultant. In our white paper opposing the Fifth Avenue L%p'ressway we noted that the Irvine Company had given the consultant their new population projection of 51,000 by 1990 in the down- , -,cast se:tion rather than the 89,000 which was part of the 1004 Orange County Southern Sector Irvine Ranch General Plan. zim-,aver, :re pointed Out that this 51,000 population_ is a projection of the Irvine Comrany and has nt,t been subject to scrutiny by all of the appropriate public institutions. T'ais sc.cutiny ?.,ill gradually be forthcoming over the next fed years. Oneon :he ba-,is or cast, udstory,can reasonably project that the actual population in be considerably below 51,000. As esamnles of the sort of reiut.�Ii.ons that could take pia•::e, note page 4 of cur :frd-te paper that the State Coastline Conservation Commission has imposed population restrictions M on the Irvine Coast bir JiMiting the size of the sewer system. _ _r the Commission limits the development on the coast could be ree.=_cted to 36,000 people through the size of the sewage treatment outfall. Jne version of the preliminary general plan prepared for the City of Irvine by ;lilsey and Ham indicates that the 10,000 acre Lrvine coast woul� be restricted to a population of 19,400. Note that this represents -•rell over a taro _'old reduction of the Lrvine Company's projections which were for a ten thousand acre coastal region with a population_ of 51,000. On the basis of all the projections over the past ten years by the Irvine Company the population of 51,000 represents the absolute rrma::imum and that the more reasonable population by 1990 5•ri.11 be substantially less, probably in the araa of 30,000 people. This, of course, would remove any traffic deficiency from Coast Highway and , in fact, would reduce Coast Hig'm.i y traffic below present utilization. Page 3, paragraph 4- The Irvine Company favors study of a re-routing of the Corona del bbx Freeway to the Bonita/Coyote Canyon alignment. We agree with the consul- tant that the development of a Bonita/Coyote Canyon realignment of the Corona del NIar Freeway is essential to a solution of the traffic problems in Corona del Mar. the must have a bypass which will route traffic not concerned directly with Corona del Mar around the city. With the Bonita Coyote Freeway;,the present Pacific Coast Highway an3 the expansion of traffic service to Fashion Island- by the planned widening of San Joaquin Hills Poad, there will be 16 or 18 lanes of highway paralleling the coast through Corona del Mar. Although we would not make such a categorical statement of possible need as TrLr. Jones' "regardless of the level- of develop- ment .... on_ the Irvine Coast", a reasonable man could conclude that this road capacity *gill easily handle the expected development especially when all the traffic between Laguna and Ne-vrgort Beach is presently. handled by four lanes of Coast Highway. Not too, that tra="iic on Coast Highway is less today than eight years ago probably because of diversion to the San Diego Freeway and the Laguna Freeway. With all the lanes available in 1990, we can confidently predict that traffic on Coast High*aay will be lower than it. is now. Page 4, recommendation 5- Mr. Jones implies that the consultant's final traffic plan leaves an Average daily trip (PI—I)TE) deficiency of 18,000 on Coast Highway for 1990. In fact, the consultant when questioned closely on this point by Commissioner Hail Seeley stated at the hearing of the Planning Commission_ that the ADT deficiency on Coast High•+ray would be small or negligible and nothing like 18,000. Our analysis indicates that there will not be a traffic deficiency on Coast Highway using the plan proposed by the consultant and largely adopted by the Planning Commission. The reasons for this are straightforward.. The demonstrated capacity of Coast Highway over the past eight years is about 40,000 ADT. The ma:timum traffic demand on Coast Higbvay through Corona del Mar as computed by the consultant varies from 37,000 to 53,030 in 1990. (See plan D phase II, report page 18). The :•reighted ave-rage considering the dlizpersal of traffic with destinations in the Corona del L:ir area as determined by the city engineers is about 48,000 ADT.' Emery factor con- slAe'L'C'!., lneluiirb the energy crisis, 'the rate of do:nlcoast development, a.n_d the probable role of mass transit, indicates that this figure o? i8,000 ADT is high. Ho'•ie✓or, accepting this high figure, '.e n3te that for the past 0 5 _ ht years the demonstrated capacity of (bast Highway in its present full length con2riSiration is at least 40,000 ADT. This leaves only 3000 ADT in addition tc that presently handled. It is very likely that Coast Hi,Piray in its present :our -lane -divided configuration can absorb the extra 8000 cars by 1990 sr_th no decrease in efficiency over that presently available. Thus, any move to restrict parking on Coast High -.ray even at selected hours is un,•rise because it is highly likely that the traffic estimates for 1990 may be high by as much as 10,000 to 20,000 ADT. These ADT figures represent projected desires not actual trips. As we pointed out in the airport analogy, there are often situations in which it is un:rise to plan facilities on the basis of desires. This happens when the fa-,iiities, such as freeways and airports, have a negative impact on the community. These ADT figures represent desires rather than actual trips. Since there is excess capacity in both San Joaquin Hills Road and the Bonita Carron Freeway, it is reasonable that some of the ADT on Coast Highway will actually travel on these other roads., The full outlines of the energy crisis are not available at this time but there is no doubt it will substantially reduce traffic. The Coast Highway is adequate for the traffic needs to 1990 without any substantial modification. These facts and analysis come in a straighforvrard manner from the consultant's Phase II report. It is amusing to no -!a that the Irvine Company is unable to determine the level of public support for the Fifth Avenue Expressway even though almost 5000 signatures from local citizens have been gathered on a petition opposing the use of this as ail_ alternative. The reason that they are unable to guess correctly the level of support is that they have generated almost all of the support for a Fifth Avenue D:pressway themselves. In fact, as part of the consultant's -report the Behavior Science Corporation did an $18,000 study concerning public attitudes in Die;roort Beach. The primary finding in the study says "building a new major highway parallel to the existing high,. -my is strongly -opposed by knowledgable individuals by in-depth discussion groups and by a major survey", Basico Study page 35, point 18. The use of Fifth Avenue received the lowest rate of acceptability (see Phasa II, page 19). Page 5, paragraph 2- 1�1r. Jones states, "As a result of this traffic deficiency on Pacific Coast Highway, businessess fronting the highway would be devastated...". As ;•re have pointed out, there will not be a traffic deficiency on Coast Highway. Tie are sure that the businessmen in Corona del b-fa.-r would be amused by the concern for their welfare by the Irvine Company. The Irvine Company has had many opportunities to show their concern_ for the businessmen of Corona del Maw as it developed Fashion Island. If it has concern, the develop- mer_t of Fashion Island leaves one wondering what the concern is. Pa3e 5, paragraph 3- The Irvine Ccmparr recommends the Fifth Avenue acpressaray be depressed. DeDressing the ^ifth Avenue Express -way makes very little difference in the major adverse-ffects on the community listed on pa s 8-10 of our *,•rhite paper; they w_•uld still be operative. The Fifth Avenue 2cpressway would be a b1i?ht on our community from its physical D1'esenae, from the excess traff e that it 9ioulrl enerate,from the public facilities it *•rould distu„b, the pa:•ks, the recreational facilities and the school that it borders. The J G visual effects of such a freeway through the center of an outs==.=._ng residential community would be terrible. The noise of trucks c=_cing the Buck Gully, grade will be a major problem. The Fifth Avenue rou__ :-could also be detrimental in that it would be an attractive nuisance ,r_ich would bring traffic through Corona Del .Fear when it could just as easily go around. In addition, its completion as an undesirable temporary alternative mould serve to delay completion of the external Bonita Canyon Bypass. Page 5, paragraph 4- The Irvine Company states that the Fifth Avenue F•cpress*,ray would alleviate traffic deficiences. As the consultant stated in the public hearings, a traffic elan that would eliminate all traffic deficiencies for a city such as Newport Beach would be an overbuilt traffic system. That is, we are going to have nominal deficiencies in the traffic plan throughout Newport Beach. The traffic deficiencies as they exist on Coast Highway throughout Corona del Mar are, as our analysis has shown, not serious. The construction of such an expensive overcapacity road would represent a traffic overkill solution as we pointed out in our White Paper. Page 6, paragraph 1- Protection of the elementary school from an adjoining freeway is really almost impossible in a meaningful sense. School children coming from the Coast Highway side of town would have to cross the freeway at one of the crossing points, the noise generated by the expressway would be intolerable and the visual effect of the expressway would be very dis- tracting. The landswap regarding the youth center takes a centrally located facility and replaces it with one located towards the periphery, obviously an umrise tradeoff. The homeowners who have been assured by the Irvine Company that this was planned all along obviously have a mind of their own and do not regard it as a reasonable tradeoff to delete the free;•ray and get back an expressway which has the same effect on their lives as a freeway. Lace numbers of them have signed a petition against the Fifth Avenue Expressway. A more reasonable tradeoff for the Irvine Compagy's loss of freeway service would be for them to take the initiative in proposing a rerouting of the eastern extension of San Joaquin Hills Road which would then provide adequate access to Newport Center. Page 6, recommendation 7,8,9- The Irvine Company 'recommends that Route 73 be widened to six to eight lanes with interchanges potentially at all crossings. These sections indicate that the profound sense in which the Fifth Avenue K=ress;•ray is an attractive nuisance in that this is a suggestion that Slate Route'73 be upgraded more and more to freeway status to connect :rith the Fifth Avenue acpressway. This quasi -freeway Trill eliminate the need for any additional freeway and route all traffic through Corona del ?-car. Pages 6,7, recommendation 6,lo It 1S in ereSt].ng to read Irvine'S analysis of these two broUosals (whioh we do not recommend) for parallel bypasses. Since they affect Irvine alversely, and duplicate present facilities, they ask for :core analysis to be "presented by the consultant". As in the rest of their le -:;ter, they brin3 forth opinions, not facts, and pla_e the burden on the oth_: party to tri v3 out the facts and to refute their contentions. Ue have tried to do that in this letter. We have argued from th_ =_cts, proluced at city expense by the consultant, and have added new fa_-s drain [L 'n public documents and hears. On this basis �:e support the ::on- sultant's conclusions for the Corona del Mar sector. The recommenced solution to the traffic problem in Corona del Mar is the realignment of the Corona del Mar Free -day to the Bonita Caron -Coyote Ca Vror. route. There is no justification for an interchange at MacArthur and Coast Highway, or for the Fifth Avenue Rcoress;,ray. When the remair_der of the plan is accomp- lished and the main east -crest grid developed, we will find. that there are several major roads paralleling Coast Highway. These include San Joaquin Hills _Road, Ford Road and finally the relocated Corona del Mar Freeway. The new capacity of these roads, will, in all probability, act to reduce traffic on Coast Highway. Freeway blight is a very real thing in our area. We must not put a Free- uay-&cpressway right through Corona del Mar. Thar'c you for your attention -to our analysis. Sincerely, Calvin S. McLaughlin 5T" 1Seaward Road Corona del Pdar V"�L4� Gerard Van Hoven . 556 Seaward Road Corona del Mar e-e Wallace Calderhead ,712 Iris Avenue Corona d-1 Mar i i:orman S•fainber;e�----�„ 953 Sanicastle Drive Corona del Mar 0 9 l♦♦1 °i U 1 {: • r ) l:a uo,�u llortean+?nesd �erri»+cn is �aac january 29, 197A Mayor McInnis & Members of City Council - City Hall, 3300 Newport Blvd. Newporc Beach, California 92660 Re: Circulation Element of the General Plan Dear Mayor McInnis and Members of the City Council: -- zos w. 4rN sr. SANTA ANA, CAWP' RN1A 9270I ME. r•�^, 1 1°7 Yap::. "•n=<_ Uirrfur L Uldee r is the opinion of .the. 3oard of -Directors -of the -Eastbluff" H'omeowner5 "- Community Association that: The draft Circulation Element of the General Plan contains plans which are a direct threat to the residential character and integrity of our community. We refer to the upgrading of Bison Avenue east of jamboree Road, to a six lane, divided road. This plan would result in a six lane divided road feed- ing traffic directly into our community, (a two lane, residential street, Bison Avenue west of jamboree Road) or north and south on jamboree Road. Although we have been told that such a "T" intersection is standard traffic engineering practice, we can find no such example within the city bf New- port Beach except in the instance of private ccmmunities,ie, Big Canyon and Bayshores. Our community has no barriers to act as protection from unwanted through traffic generated by' such a traffic load. Therefore, we request that every effort be made by the City to make use of y alternate means of routing traffic from the proposed CDM Freeway. There are several alternatives readily available, including: a. Eastbluff Drive at either end. b. Camelback Street, which would provide a true "T`' intersection without jeopardizing a community. tilre endorse recommendation of the Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee, which calls attention to the same problem_ 'vVe loos: forward to your preserving the present desirable elements of �kr�tu� Ea,tbluff Community in the future plans of our city. EASTBL(IFF HOMEOWNERS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ; n •7 `r ,l/ 'l ���Y� �®�� iNl`�} ,`' •� /Jrfla i^_ S'L Pcosident \i 00 NOT REMOVE"`,���,,,�' GEORGE HOFFMAN 9763 W. PICO BOULEVARD LOS ANGCLE9. CALIFORNIA 90033 993.0450 January 28, 19i Planning Commission City Hall Newport Beach, Calif. Gentlemen: As one of the owners of the Southwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Nar- cissus, I would like to voice my objection to the proposed removal of parking on Pacific Coast Highway. Our property is Occupied by See's Candies, and while it provides parking for Sees, I believe the,over-all effect on the business district of eliminating curb parking would be disastrous. One has only to look at other areas where parking has been curtailed to see what can happen. I sincerely hope that this will not occur in Corona Del Mar. ,DPI �© yf,ol fo�,�r-►4 �.0 • � z .fv ghg/rwp 1+' Yours truly, V Glic� DO tNOT REMOVE A PLAN TO GET ROAD IMPROVEMENTS NOW We spent a good deal of -time and effort on the Heather -McInnis road improvement study, but we were unable to produce any new solutions to the tough problems we face.. Now I would like to propose that we take the Heather -McInnis study a step further. Our biggest obstacle is in acquiring the funds needed to improve our roads. A rough estimate which accounts for inflation factors and utilizes the cost figures from the adopted Circulation Element of the General Plan places City cost af­bVei-$25"million and State costs at close to $40 million, A lesser obstacle has been the length -of time we have waited for our much -delayed traffic model. I have been of the opinion that the longer this model is delayed, the less believable it will become. We can no longer wait; we need to get to work now and we all need to work together. Let's get busy on the listed improvements in the Circulation Element on which we can all agree. This should amount to at least 80% of what we want. Many factions in this City have been wasting a lot of time and energy on the few portions of the•Circulation Element we can't get agreement on. These groups need to quit arguing and debating and push now for the major portions of the road system where we have no disagreements. We've got to be posi- tive. In today's fiscal climate, we're not about to have the State fund controversial roads; we'll have to work together and work well just to get the roads we agree on. We need to agree not to disagree. We certainly recognize the financial impact of Proposition- 13 and the potential impact of the Gann initiative should it pass. The•ability of the City to find the $25 million it needs to improve its roads is becoming more limited. I recognize that we need the help of all factions in town if we are to get the needed road improvements. I would now call upon representatives of the various organi- zations in the City to become directly involved in this effort. At the next City Council meeting, we will discuss the formulation of an action program to get these road improvements built. . i 1.5:.�1�'✓�j COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF n m mom y-� mm onil roll m January 17. 1974 NEWP'ORT FACW " MINUTES lmnry encourage a wide range of housing choices." Motion failed. Motion X Motion was made that the paragraph under Time Phase All Ayes on Page 15 be changed to read: "The Open Housing Ordinance will be adopted as soon as possible but in no event later than December 1974." Motion carried. Motion X Mo 'on was made that the paragraph under Action Ayes X X X X X X on Pa 16 be changed to read: "In view of the Noes X regiona nature of the problem of providing ade- quate low d moderate -cost housing, the City of Newport Beac will cooperate with the Orange Count Housing Authors Also, the City will be respon- sive to recognize groups or organizations quali- fied to advise it c cerning ways in which it too may assist directly in this local,regional, state and national problem." tion carried. Motion X Planning Commission approved a Housing Element All Ayes of the Newport Beach General P1 as amended above, subject to the .acceptance of an En 'ronmental Impact Report, and adopted Resolutio No. 874 recommending that the City Council ado the Housing Element of the Newport Beach Gene 1 Plan. Motion carried. Motion X Motion was made that consideration of the Enviro - All Ayes mental Impact Report on the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan be continued to the meeting of February 7, 1974. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Planning Commission discussed conflicting actions taken on December 13, 1973 and January 10, 1974 in connection with a part of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan pertaining to a segment of Coast Highway between MacArthur Boule- vard and Jamboree Road with the possibility of an interchange at MacArthur Boulevard and Coast High- way. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made that all Ayes X X X X actions taken in connection with that portion of Noes X X X the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan pertaining to Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road with the possibility of an interchange'at MacArthur Boule- � L CaFly Page 15. DO NOT REMOV COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT OACH " m Diym 2 < MINUTES y A70 A Dell VAII m January 17. 1974 ,11mou vard and Coast Highway be rescinded and that Resolution No. 875 be adopted setting a public hearing for February 7, 1974 at the hour of 7:00 P.M., to reconsider said portion of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. MXesl X Commissioner Heather requested and received A permission to be excused from the afternoon portion of the Planning Commission meeting of February 7, 1974. Motion X There being no further business, Planning Commission All Ayes adjourned the meeting. Time: 10:05 P.M. JOSEPH ROSENER, JR., Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 16. January 161, 1974 Mr. L. McConvilla Road Commissioner & County Surveyor County of Orange Engineering Building 400 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701. Dear Mr; McConville: Thank you for your letter regarding a possible cooperative study of the extension of the Corona -del Mar Freeway. We certainly will be interested -in participating in the proposed cooperative study. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUitITY DEVELOPMENT_ R. V. HO AN, Director RVH/kk CC: Public Work Dept. J. D. Hewic er R. L. Gunn DO 'NOT REl1OVE N G E ROAD DEPARTMENT January 7, 1974 Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport -Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sir: L. MCCONVILLE ROAD COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY SURVEYOR ENGINEERING BUILDING 400 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE 714-834.3448 Reference is made to an October 15, 1973 meeting held in the Road Department offices and attended by various cities, the State Department of Transportation and The Irvine Company. Purpose of the meeting was to discuss the desirability of a cooperative study to examine potential alternate routes (in- cluding one in Bonita Canyon) for the Corona del Mar Freeway southerly of University Drive. The general consensus of those attending the meeting was that such a study should be made. The Road Department was to contact each agency represented to obtain written commitment'to participate in the study. In its initial review of the matter, it was the opinion of this office that the analysis of the Corona del Mar Freeway should be related to the proposed coastal zone transportation study. However, it now appears that the coastal zone study may require more time than previously anticipated. Therefore, we are contacting you to determine your current interest in participating in a cooperative study of the Corona del Mar Freeway southerly of University Drive. If agency responses indicate an interest in the study and a willingness to participate, this office will arrange the for- mation of a study committee involving administrative, engineering and planning staff from participating agencies. Very truly yours, L.`McCONVILLE X Road Commissioner & County Surveyor LM:WLZ:iI -- �„ RFC EIV HD �"l ily v OavDaPLant JAN 7 91978.,>- C t3EV✓ CALIF. B ZN jaw In the interest o/ waste resource 2 /P . L 13•15 0 CITY OF NEWPORT'BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY January 11, 1974 To: PLANNING COMMISSION From: David R. Baade Assistant City Attorney Subject: Effect of Action Taken At The Meeting of 1/10/74 Regarding Project 7 of The Newport Beach Traffic Study At its meeting of January 10, 1974, the Planning Commission took action regarding Project 7 of the Newport Beach Traffic Study. However, the Commission had already taken a vote regarding that Project at its meeting of December 13, 1973. Therefore, the action taken at the meeting of January 10 was invalid. .In order for the action taken on January 10 to be effective, it would have been necessary to first pass a motion to rescind the action taken on December 13. Such a motion was not made. Therefore, the matter could not be reconsidered. &IF W-( 0 2 0 1 - M - "M DAVID R. BAADE VOLE Dap"V"' y RECEIVED 1 community Development Dept, JAN 141974im.- NEWPORtCF CALIF EACH, DO NOT REMOVE RE�Ei pro r ity JAN1,� i���ym- •5 o OF 6 Mr. Donald McInnis, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 13.1-1 CONES iE9i TO: ,SPN NN �✓f 1 Ve CJ ❑ 5•b.rrl.r rb1- Ari+ Dir¢¢PovP 9vmrn� UireCtb�y/�..�,n- ❑ El Dear Mayor McInnis: Find enclosed a white paper on the Corona del Mar traffic patterns on Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard east projected to 1990. This paper supports the key recommendations of the consultant and the Planning Commission for this area: 1. Relocate the Corona del Mar Freemay through Bonita Canyon. i 2. Slightly modify Coast Highway instead of con- structing the Fifth Avenue Expressway. The data presented in the paper suggests that a ban on parking on the Coast Highway in unnecessary. 0 January 14, 1974 Although the "recommendations of the consultant and the Planning Com- mission are clear and logical, I have presented some of the arguments against a Fifth Avenue Expressway in brief form against the pessi.bil:ity that certain powerful interests may attempt to revive the Fifth Avenue alternative. Bluntly, the Irvine Company appears to be readying one of their typical campaigns on the Fifth Avenue issue. Neither the Irvine Company or what many people believe is their satallite trganization, The Neirpo-rt Beach Chamber of Co+nn:erce, chose to present their case in a straight .forward, honest and orderly manner -before the Planning Commission. Instead of open debate where they would have to defend their proposals on their -reasonable merits -which are few -they preferred to use the Daily Pilot Newspaper. The Daily Pilot is pro -Irvine Company and presented only one side of the issue. The contrast between the Irvine Company and the opponents of Fifth Avenue, who believe in free and open local government, couldn't be greater. We presented and argued the case against Fifth Avenue before the scheduled hearings of the Planning Commission. Certainly one of the unspoken questions during the coming debate will be, "Is Newport Beach still an Irvine Company to*=n 9" Additionally, I would like to point out that all through the traffic patterns in Newport Beach we are continually projected as having traffic in the excess of street capacity. It is important for you to recognize that these nominal capacities for streets are assigned -n the basis of engineering standards that are applied nationwide and do not take into account many of the unusual circumstances �- Qur traffi., patterns. Some of these unusual circumstances are, first, ;re have a very favor- able weather pattern so that we do not :lave tL- alLcw fcr jam-ups during unfavorable weather. Secondly, anI probably ucst importani., the traffic tends tc• be more dispersed. throughout the 24 11L1,r_1 perk i. than in many -in the- 01. `ice of `"'City Clerk TODAY'S MAIL Date: I , / !J Atth/,Y- Page 2-continued cities. This is because the industry which supports Corona del Mar and Newport Beach tends to have widely varying opening and closing hours. Thus, there is not a tremendous five o'clock rush, although it is cert- ainly the peak hour here as elsewhere. Thirdly, when roads do become overcapacitated, as the consultant pointed out last time , there is a tendency for the traffic to divert to other major streets. Right now Coast Highway is the only road through Corona del Mar, but when the rest of the grid is built there will be a number of roads which will be available for people to take if Coast Highway becomes congested. Fourthly, each individual street,due,to the pattern of cross traffic, really represents a unique situation and can not be fully described with these average national criteria. The segment of the Coast Highway in question is short and doesn't have a great deal of cross traffic. For these reasons the demonstrated catacity of Coast Highway in its present configuration is at least 40,000 ADT. Sincerely, Calvin S. McLaughlin 544 Seaward Road Corona del Mar Gerard Van Hoven 556 Seaward Road Corona del Mar White Paper on the Corona del Mar Traffic Patterns on Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard Bast Projected to 1990. Rerouted Corona del Mar freeway The key to a reasonable solution of the traffic problems in Corona del Mar and Newport Beach is the development of a major bypass route around Corona del Mar, so that through traffic and beach traffic other than that to Big and Little Corona does not use Corona del Mar as a traffic corridor. As the consultant has identified (Phase III final report), this major bypass should consist of a relocated Corona del Mar freeway going through Bonita Canyon and finally through the Irvine Company's coastal sector, about one mile inland from the present Coast Highway. This bypass has the support of homeowner associations in Corona del Mar, the Chamber of Commerce, the Traffic ConsultarA, and the citizens of Corona del Mar. In shor-t-, this logical solution has the support of all the interests involved and should be adopted. Traffic Load on Coast Highway to 1990 Given this Bonita Canyon relocated Corona del Mar Freeway as the bypass around Corona del Max and the rest of the traffic patterns proposed by the consultant for the areas adjacent to Corona del Mar, what sort of traffic demand can we reasonably expect for the Coast Highway in 1990. Making a number of assumptions which we will discuss later, the consultant in the Phase II report's plan D (which in this area most losely resembles the adopted plan) estimates the traffic through this area as between 37,000 and 53,000 average daily trips. Based on a detailed examination of the patterns involved, an average estimate wruli be about 48,000. • 2 For the past eight years the ADT on this segment of Coast Highway has hovered around 40,000 by actual count (data from the Public Works Director). Thus the estimated demand -projected almost 20 years -is only about 8000 (20 percent of the current load) more than Coast Highway is carrying now. The range of estimates of load on the Coast High�,ray in 1990 in addition to that presently carried, varies from zero ADT to a maximum figure of 13,000, considering the demonstrated capacity of the Coast Highway as at least 40,000 ADT in its present condition. In no way can this 8000 ADT increase over what the Coast Highway is presently carrying,be used to logically justify a Fifth Avenue bypass in addition to the Bonita Canyon -Corona del Mar Freeway bypass. Thus, the consultant recommends in the Phase III final report that $40,000 of minor modifications to Coast Highway will enable it to carry the projected 1990 load. This is a sensible,economical solution to the traffic problem through Corona del Mar and should be adopted in the general plan of Newport Beach. The consultant has listed,as an undesirable alternative to �40,000 worth of Coast Highway modification, the construction of a six lane limited access Expressway through the old Coast Freeway right of way at a cost of 48,680,000. This is of course a technical solution to the 8000 ADT increase required of Coast Highway by 1990. This road would have an ADT capability of between 60,000 to 80,000 to handle 8000 cars difference between the present load of Coast Highway and the 1990 projected load. It is illogical to build this sort of a road to handle such a small number of cars. In fact,if we consider theJ8,680,000 as a debt to be paid off in 20 years, it *.•could cost us as taxpayers over 25 cents a trip on less than two miles of road for each of the 8000 cars a day in excess of what Coast Highway now carries. Never would so much road have been built for so few cars. Nonetheless, strong forces exist that want this Fifth Avenue Expressway . . • • 3 built. Therefore, it may be helpful to discuss the arguments against building it that were correctly recognized in the excellent final report of the Traffic Consultant. These arguments will also demonstrate that there is no need to ban parking on the Coast Highway if the Fifth Avenue Expressway is not built. The Strong Case Against Building the Fifth Avenue Expressway rests on Five Sexarate Considerations: 1. There is no need for the road with the traffic increase projected to 1990. 2. The physical presence of the road would be a blight on our community. 3. Its very presence would encourage extra, unwanted and unneeded traffic in the coast area. It would be an attractive nuisance. 4. Development of the Fifth Avenue Bypass will hurt the businesses on Coast Highway. 5• The people of Corona del Mar, an informed group of citizens, are over- whelmingly opposed to the construction of a Fifth Avenue Expressway. 1. Projected traffic increase to 1990 (A)Projected development of the downcoast area to 1990- Based on downcoast development figures given by the Irvine Company, the consultant recommends against the use of a Fifth Avenue Expressway. Every identifiable factor indicates that these development figures over- estimate the traffic load in 1990 on the Coast Highway and substantiate the fact that the Fifth Avenue Expressway is not needed and further suggest that parking bans on Coast Highway will not be required. The consultant has basei his projected traffic increase to 1990, as it affectE the problem of modification of Coast High;ray and the possible 4 need for a Fifth Ave*bypass, on development figure• r the down - coast and Fashion Island areas furnished by the Irvine Company. Almost all of the excess traffic predicted for 1990, that is traffic over that presently handled on Coast Highway, will come from the doomcoast development. This is shown by the link analysis on the Fifth Avenue bypass (published in the Phase II report of the consultant, Page 21). In this link analysis, almost 100 percent of the traffic carried on the bypass originated or terminated dovmcoast. A substantial portion of this traffic's destination appears to be the Fashion Island Shopping complex. Projections for the growth of this complex were furnished by the Irvine Company. These growth pro- jections are subject to a fifteen times multiplier; for each retail employee one projects fifteen trips a day, thus substantially increasing the traffic load. Thus, with respect to this traffic problem, the data on future devel- opment at both ends of the road are largely based on proprietary projections of growth by the Irvine Company which have not been provided for public examination and analysis. In addition, these estimates apply to areas in which no prior experience is available. It should be considered noteworthy that, even with all of these optimistic projections from the Irvine Company, the traffic on Coast Highway in 1990 is only 8000 ADT over that currently carried. There is every reason to believe that both of these figures furnished by the Irvine Company represent substantial overestimates. Fundamentally, they are based on the dovmcoast development of a population of 51,000 in 1990 with a mix of recreational and permanent residences which the Irvine Company believes will be in its best interest. This 51,000 population figure which has not been scrutinized and accepted by the various public agencies involved with the development or with traffic planning, will almost certainly be revised downward as time goes along. An example of this was reported November 11, 1973 in the Los Angeles Times. The State Coastline Conser- vation Commission has imposed population limits cn the size of the sewer system that would serve the Irvine Coast. Under the Commission limits, the 5 Water District which covers the coast would be restricted to serving only 36,000 people through the sewage treatment out£all. This reduction of the population increase on the coast from 51,000 to 36,000 (a decrease of 30 per cent) would effectively lower the projected traffic increase on Coast Highway in 1990 to zero. There is a strong possibility that,if the Cities of Irvine or Newport Beach are involved in planning the doTMcoast development, hillside homes which would house a major portion of the 1990 population would be re- stricted because of their uneconomical nature from the point of view of the tax burden on the rest of the population. One must conclude that , based on a variety of environmental and pollution considerations, it is highly unlikely that the present Irvine development plans for a population of 51,000 in the downcoast sector will be realized by 1990. (B) Mode of transportation projected to 1990 The second major development that was not considered quantitatively by the consultant possibly because the problem had not been dramatically presented at that time, relates to the energy crisis (PhaselII, page 26). Scientific opinion has known for a number of years that we are building to a real energy crisis in terms of exploitable petroleum reserves. We, quite simply, are running out of oil. Furthermore, we are running out of oil on a time scale which will be important by 1990. The best opinion (Scientific American, 1971) indicates that oil production in the United States including Alaska will peak before 1980. Oil production world-wide will peak before 1990 if the projected increase in demand for energy is met by oil. In the most optimistic projections on oil avail- I between now and 1990 it is anticipated that the price of fuel will increase rapidly to several dollars a gallon. Indeed the price has increased by about taro -thirds over the past two years to a price of 50 cents per gallon (December 1973) with more rises to come. Further, there is another factor involved in the energy crisis; over half of the known oil reserves and immediately available production facilities in the world are located in the Middle East. As has been lately demonstrated,:this area is reluctant to supply oil at very cheap prices to the rest of the world, and their strategy is contagious. It appears that we are coming to a transition point in our transportation mix similar to that which occurred when we changed from horses and trains to automobiles. The falling sales this year of full size cars confirm that we are in a transition period which must be taken seriously by planning agencies. Thus, it si important to note that neither the consultant's plan, nor the Irvine Company's development goals, on which the consultant's data were based for this downcoast development, quantita,Uvely takes into account this energy crisis which will surely restrict the use of automobiles. Both of their plans are based on the private auto as almost the sole means of transportation in 1990. This, of course, seriously over -estimates the traffic load for 1990.(see Phase III page 27 for the consultants warning on this point). Public transportation will also lessen the wehicle traffic flow on Pacific Coast Highway. The increase in public transportation will be spurred by high fuel costs, since these modes of transportation are fuel efficient as compared to automobiles, and will also be the subject of government support. Already in its first year of full scale operation, the Orange County Transit District has removed the equivalent of 400 cars a day from Coast Highway. The Orange Counts Transit District plans .for a further increase of servi-,e indicate that in the next five years they will be -removing thousands of cars a day from Coast Highiray as people become diverted from their • 7 cars into buses. Thus, anticipation on the basis of these considerations is that traffic on Coast Highway may very will drop substantially below present levels in terms of average daily trips (C) Impact of air pollution on automobile travel - Another factor which will reduce the rate of growth of automobile transportation in this area is the air pollution problem in the Los Angeles basin. The Environmental Protection Agency plans to severely ration gasoline and curtail parking to achieve clean air as mandated by law for 1975. Of,course, with the energy crisis the plan may be moot, but there is no doubt that we must as a region clean up the air pollution which at present represents a serious health problem. The consultant did not quantitatively include this pollution problem in his projection, but instead warned that agencies considering his report must estimate its seriousness and realize that concern with the environment in increasing (Phase III page 36). Additionally, we should recognize that the Envizonmental Pro- tection Agency is charged with controlling the development of new population centers such as the Irvine coast in order to ensure that the environment is not degraded by these developments. This new control element will surely modify and retard the growth of the downcoast area. In summary, every identificable factor affecting the rate of downcoast development tends to reduce the rate of population growth and traffic increase in the time frame to 1990. They indicate that the consultant's projections, in themselves, are inadequate to support a Fifth Avenue Expressway, and substantially overestimate the rate of traffic increase on Coast Highway. (D) Projected Pattern of Traffic Flow to 1990. Traffic consultants freely admit that the pattern of flow as contrasted with the amount of traffic is the most difficult variable to predict. This is especially true in a situation such as the coast development, where there are no existing driving patterns to give one an insight into • 8 community driving habits. This arises because each motorist is free to take alternative routes and will do so if he finds one route is slower or less pleasant than another. Our judgment, as residents of the area, about the pattern of traffic flow is probably better than the consultants because we live here. Almost everyone who has throughly studied the alternate routes downcoast believes that the consultant has underestimated the amount of Coast Highway traffic that will be diverted to the Bonita Canyon Freeway. Traffic will divert because the major source of jobs, schools and shops in that direction. At present there are no .alternative routes to Coast Highway but when the dovmcoast network is built, there will be a number of altern- ative routes available, to downcoast traffic. For example, 11,000 of the present 40,000 Coast Highway cars represent beach traffic, moving up and dorm the coast. A substantial proportion of this traffic would be diverted by the Bonita Canyon Freeway. Thus, we estimate the pattern of traffic flow in 1990 will haveJhwer cars using the Coast Highway than presently use it. 2. The Physical Presence of the Fifth Avenue Bypass Would be a Blight on Our Community Corona del Mar is a fine place to live and visit.. We want to keep it as a traffic terminus not as a corridor. The construction of the Fifth Avenue Expressway, a six lane, limited access road, would effectively make Corona del Mar a corridor, channeling traffic_ through it that does not have Corona del Mar as its particular destination. The Fifth Avenue Expressway would be a blight on our community because it would encourage unne—iesary traffic to come through the residential area of the city. This traffic would contribute noise pollution, air pollution, and the visual pollution of having this major barrier in oui• community. In Southern California the freeways effectively act as artificial barriers between . 9 communities. The Fifth Avenue expressway would delete one of the three roads crossing the freeway corridor, further isolating the upper part of town. The surest way to destroy the character of Corona del Mar is to put a freeway -type highway through it. The visual effect of the road would certainly be that of a freeway. In addition the cut in the cut in the 140 foot high east wall of Brick Gulley required to maintain the road grade, would destroy this scenic formation and be visible for miles. Many of our school- children would have to cross this freeway -like barrier on their way to schools. 3. The Presence of the Fifth Avenue Expressway Would Act as an Attractive Nuisance. The Fifth Avenue Expressiray would act as an attractive nuisance for the city of Corona del Max in two senses. First of all, it would attract traffic because it probably would be quicker to take the Fifth Avenue route than the Bonita Canyon bypass to some points in Newport Beach. Therefore, this expressway will tend to divert traffic from the alternative Corona del Mar freeway bypass down Bonita Canyon. A certain percentage of this traffic, especially in the summer, will find it convenient not to proceed to the beaches downcoast, but to the Corona del Max beaches. This will overcfowd these beaches and make them less available for the residents and for the people who legitimately seek them out for their major destination because of their beauty. I a second and more profound sense, the Fifth Avenue Expressway is an attractive nuisance because it alone is capable of handling all the dormcoast traffic projected to 1990, eliminating the need for the more desirable alternative of the external Bonita Canyon Bypass. Thus, if the Fifth Avenue route were to be approved, one would run the grave danger that the Corona del Mar freeway mould be extended dorm McArthur to meet the Fifth Avenue &cp-ressway at a large interchange which would then funnel traffic to Fashion Island and the downcast developments. The Fifth Avenue Expressway might be called an expressway,* under those conditions it woolbe functioning as a bonafide freeway carrying a tremendous amount of traffic through Corona del Mar. 4. Adverse Effects of a Fifth Avenue Expressway on the Corona del Mar Business District Construction of the Fifth Avenue Expressway will hurt the local merchants by diverting their share of the new downcoast business directly to Fashion Island. In addition, it will wall off all of their customers above Fifth Avenue, causing them to find it more convenient to shop in Harbor View Center, for example. The analysis, given previously, of the realistic limits on downcoast development and the resultant traffic does not support the removal of park- ing from Pacific Coast Highway. The presently demonstrated effective capacity of the Corona del Mar section is 40,000 cars per day. An increase of this capacity by 60 per cent (as quoted in the consultant's report anal- ysing a change from four to six lanes of traffic) would make room for 64,000 cars per day. This capacity is not warranted by even the maximum projections and, beyond the inconvenience created for shoppers and business- men, would also provide an abrasive nuisance in the sense described above. For these reasons, over 160 merchants have joined us in opposing the Fifth Avenue Expressway and opposing a modification of parking on the Coast Highway. The merchants are justifiably concerned about parking near their businesses but not at the price of isolating the Harbor View -residents from their shops or of diverting any new downnoast business from Coast Highway. 5. The citizens of Corona del Mar Oppose the Construction of a Fifth Avenue Expre s swav . The citizens of Corona del b1ax and Newport Beach have spoken very clearly on the Filth Avenue Expressway. They want no express-,%W cutting their town in half: 1. The Harbor oa Freeway Fighters gathered 200 signatures opposing the construction of a freeway in Newport Beach which would have been located in the Fifth Avenue corridor. 2. The Citizens Coordinating Committee gathered 10,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot to eliminate the use of that particular corridor. 3. 85 per cent of the electorate voted to veto a "freeway agreement" which used the Fifth Avenue corridor specifically. 4. 85 per cent of the electorate voted for and the State ratified a Charter Amendment prohibiting the construction of a freeway or an expressway in our city without a vote of the people. 5. The consultant's report says that the Fifth Avenue plan is an expressway (Phase III, page 81). 6. As a part of this consultant's report, Behavior Science Corporation did an $18,000 study regarding public attitude. As a primary find- ing the study says "building a new major highway parallel to the existing Coast Highway is strongly opposed by knowledgeable individuals, by in-depth discussion groups and by a major survey" (Basico Study, Page 35, Point 18). The use of Fifth Avenue received the lowest rating of acceptability (see Phase II, Page 18). In conclusion, the people of Corona del Mar don't want the Fifth Avenue Expressway which would degrade rather than enhance their communities. Although there is an understandable emotion connected with these convictions, they are also based on facts , as we have attempted to demonstrate in this white paper. The authors of this report, and other concerned citizens of Corona Del Mar on both sides of this issue, have spoken to boards of directors and town hall meetings of homeowners asse-,iations, have engaged in debates at these meetings, at Chamber of Commerce meetings, and on cable television, and have written articles for local new•;s_apers. In addition, they have 0 12 presented their analysis and conclusions in the arena of public hearings before the City's Traffic -Advisory Committee and Planning Commission, often without opposition. Finally, one should not discount the traffic savvyof the shopping, carpooling, and commuting homeoo-me-r. Dependence on the automobile is a condition of life in Southern California and the citizens are quite sophisticated in their evaluation of their conflicting needs for quiet and road access. You have received a large petition indicating the results of their thinking. They find no rational reason why the Filth Avenue Expressway should be built because the road is unnecessasary. Consequently, we request that you accept the recommendations of the consultant and the Planning Commission that the Fifth Avenue Expressway not be built and that the Corona del Mar Freeway be relocated through Bonita Canyon to bypass Corona del Mar completely. On the basis of our analysis, we request that parking on Coast Highway be continued in its present state. There is no compelling reason to change the existing pattern. 13. Planning Commission Meeting January 10 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January'8, 1974 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJ: Request to consider.the adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and acceptance of Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB - 73-045. Background On December 13, 1973, the Planning Commission continued this item until a Special Meeting on January 10, 1974. However, the Commission at the December 13, 1973 meeting did adopt several specific recommendations for the Pacific Coast Highway corridor. These recommendations are contained within the Minutes o•f'tha't meeting. Circulation Element Text Attached are the introductory sections of the Circulation Element text for the Commission's consideration. It is intended that this material combined with pages 40 (starting with "Project Priorities") through and including page 78 -of .the Consultant's report as modified by the Commission constitute the text of the Circulation Element at this time. Public Transit and Parking Facilities It is the opinion of the staff that the scope of the Circulation. Element should include recommendations for other types of transportation facilities such as public transit and parking. Studies although not complete are under way in these other areas. For example, attached is a report dated December 17, 1973 to the City Council on the feasibility of a mini -bus operation within the City. It is the intent of the staff to come back to the Commission at a later date with recommendations for an amendment to the Circulation Element to include public transit and parking facilities. DO 'NOT RE&IOVE Master Plan of Streets and Highways The staff has revised the Master Plan of Streets and Highways at the suggestion of the Commission. The revised Master Plan of Streets and Highways will be displayed at the meeting. Environmental Impact Report The E.I.R. for the Circulation Element will be submitted to the Planning Commission as soon as the Consultant studies on noise and the effect the circulation system will have on the intensity of land use are completed. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Planning Commission by resolution adopt and recommend approval to the City Council the Circulation Element of the General Plan and continue consideration of the E.I.R. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By Rodney L. Gunn Advance Planning Administrator RLG:jmb Att.l)Introductory sections of the Circulation Element Text. 2)Report dated December 17, 1973 to City Council. 13.1 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA ma City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. (714) 673.2130 December 21, 1973 Mr. Calvin S. McLaughlin 544 Seaward Road Corona del Mar, California 92625 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: I am writing to apologize for a situation that was, through my failures, extremely embarrasing to Mr. Agee and also to me. Through what appears to have been a series of administrative "goofs," we failed to get your white paper to the Planning Com- mission in time for them to read it prior to the first meeting. The only redeeming feature,of the whole process is that they have not completed their hearing on the Circulation Element, have received your paper, and will have time to read it before they complete their work. As far as I can determine, here is how it all happened. When your paper arrived, because of the press of business, I was unable to get to the mail for a couple of days. After I did see it and sent it out for distribution, it for some reason was sent to the wrong division and the recipient in that division didn't understand -its importance in relationship to the work at hand, and as a consequence it was not reproduced for distribution until after our regular distribution had been made. Then when it was discovered by the Advance Planning Division and repro- duced, it was not brought to the meeting of the Planning Commis- sion although we had the copies prepared and on hand. I can only say that I am very sorry and that I wish that I could perfect my administrative process so that this sort of thing never happened. We will send copies of your paper to the City Council along with the report of the Planning Commission when they complete their work on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HD or RVH/kk i CC:. Bill Agee Rod Gunn December 21, 1973 Mr. Calvin S. Mc'LaughIiri 544 Seaward Road Corona del Mar, California 92525 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: I am writing to apologize for n situation th'at was, through my i failures, extremely embarrasing to Mr. Agee and a,`tso to me, Through what appears to have -been a serlez of administrative Xofs," we failed to get your white p-apar to the Planning Comes sion in time for them, to read it prior to the f11'st:.,meeting. 'the only redeeming features o.f the whbli'Pracess is•that they have not completed their hearing on the Circulation Element, 'have received your paper, and will have ti-me to read it before "they complete their work. As far as I can determine, here is haw it all happened. When: n.". 'your paper arrived, because of the press of business, I was Unable to get to the main for a couple of days. After I did i',fea it and sent it out for distributions it for some 'reason was sent to the wrong division and the reci-pi-ent in that division didn't understand its importance i-n relationship to the work'at hand, and as a consequence it was not reproduced for distribution '� until after our regular distribution had been made. Then when 4: it was discovered by the Advance Planning Division and repro- duced, it was not brought to the meeting of the Planning Commis» %ion although we had the copies prepared and on hand. I can only say that I am very sorry and that I wish that I .,...could perfect my administrative process so that this sort of ,thing never happened. We will send oo-pi-es of your paper to•the- ` City Council along with the report of the Planning Commission when they complete, their work on the Circulation Clement of the General Plan. N` T' {ti •i. t. Ury truly yours. .DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r V. HUCAN, VirMor RV-,H%kk n U December 6, 1973 Mr. William Agee, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Agce: Find enclosed a white paper on the -Corona del Mar traffic patterns on Coast Highway from MacAuthur Boulevard Bast projected to 1990. This paper supports the key recommendations of the consultant for this area: 1. Relocate the Corona del Max Freeway through Bonita Canyon. 2. Slightly modify Coast Highway instead of con- structing the Fifth Avenue Expressway. The data presented in the paper suggests that a ban on parking on.the Coast Highway is unnecessary. Although the recommendation of the consultant in this area is clear, and logical, I have presented some of the arguements against a Fifth Avenue Expressway in brief form against the possibility that certain powerful interests may attempt to revive the Fifth Avenue alternative. Sincerely, Calvin S. McLaughlin 544 Seaward Road Corona Del Mar O u'`4 RECr1`!ED Comm�n`r�. Gerard Van Hoven papt. 556 Seaward Road 1373';- Corona del Mar —' C1Y0 a yAE4?ORS E� CH. \ �,.-, CALL• � cc: City Council \�� y White Paper on the Corona del Mar Traffic Patterns on Coast Highway from MacAurthur Boulevard East Projected to 1990. Rerouted Corona del Mar Freeway The key to a reasonable solution of the traffic problems in Corona del Mar and Newport Beach is the development of a major bypass route around Corona del Mar, so that through traffic and beach traffic other than Big and Little Corona does not use Corona del Mar as a traffic corridor. As the consultant has identified (Phase III final report), this major bypass should consist of a relocated Corona del Mar freeway going through Bonita Canyon and finally through the Irvine Company's coastal sector, about one mile inland from the present Coast Highway. This bypass has the support of homeowner associations in Corona del Mar, the Chamber of Commerce, the Traffic Consultant and the citizens of Corona del Mar. In short, this logical solution has the support of all the interests involved and should be adopted. Traffic Load on Coast Highway to 1990 Given this Bonita Canyon relocated Corona del Mar Freeway as the bypass around Corona del Max and the rest on the traffic patterns proposed by the consultant for the areas adjacent to Corona del Mar, what sort of traffic demand can we reasonably expect for the Coast Highway in 1990. Making a number of assumptions which we will discuss later, the consultant in the Phase II report's plan D (which in this area most closely resembles the adopted plan) estimates the traffic through this area as between 37,000 ATD and 53,000 ATD (ATD, average daily trips). Based 6n a detailed examination of the patterns involved, an average estimate would be about 48,000 ATD. 2 For the past eight years the ADT on this segment of Coast Highway has hovered around 40,000 by actual count (data from the Public Works Director). Thus the projected demand -projected almost 20 years -is only about 8000 (20 percent of the current load) more than Coast Highway is carrying now. The range of estimates of load on the Coast Highway in 1990 in addition to that presently carried, varies from zero ADT to a high figure of 13,000 considering the demonstrated capacity of the Coast Highway as at least 40,000 ADT in its present condition. In no way can this 8000 ADT increase over what the Coast Highway is presently carrying be used to logically justify a Fifth Avenue bypass in addition to the Bonita Canyon -Corona del, Mar Freeway bypass. Thus, the consultant recommends in the Phase III final report that $40,000 of minor modifications to Coast Highway will enable it to carry the projected 1990 load. This is a sensible,economical solution to the traffic problem through Corona del Max and should be adopted in the general plan of Newport Beach. The consultant has listed as an undesirable alternative to ,40,000 worth of Coast Highway modification, the construction of a six lane limited access lkpressway through the old Coast Freeway right of way at a cost of 18,680,000. This is,of course, a technical solution to the 8000 ADT increase required of Coast Highway by 1990. This road would have an ADT capability of between 60,000 to 80,000 to handle 8000 cars difference between the, present load of Coast Highway and the 1990 projected load. It is illogical to build this sort of a road to handle such a small number of cars. In fact,if we consider the$8,680,000 as a debt to be paid off in 20 years, it would cost us as taxpayers over 25-cents- a -trip on less"than two mugs of road for each of the 8000 cars a day in excess of what Coast Highway now carries. Never would so much road have been built for so few cars. Nevertheless, strong forces exist that want this Fifth Avenue Expressway • 3 built. Therefore, it may be helpful to discuss the arguments against building it that were correctly recognized in the excellent final report of the Traffic Consultant. These arguments will also demonstrate that there is no need to ban parking on the Coast Highway if the Fifth Avenue Expressway is not built. The Strong Case Against Building the Fifth Avenue Expressway rests on Five Seperate Considerations: 1. There is no need for the road with the traffic increase projected to 1990. 2. The physical presence of the road would be a blight on our community. 3. Its very presence would encourage extra, unwanted and unneeded traffic in the coast area. It would be an attractive nuisance. 4. Development of the Fifth Avenue Bypass will hurt the businesses on Coast Highway. 5. The people of Corona del Mar, an informed group of citizens, are over- whelmingly opposed to the construction of a Fifth Avenue Expressway. 1. Projected traffic increase to 1990 (A)Projected development of the downcoast area to 1990- Summary: Based on downcoast development figures given by the Irvine Company, the consultant recommends against the use of a Fifth Avenue Expressway - Every identifiable factor indicates that these development figures over- estimates the traffic load in 1990 on the Coast Highway and substantiates that the Fifth Avenue Expressway is not needed and further suggests that parking bans on Coast Highway wi11 notPbe required. The consultant has based his projected traffic increase to 1990, as it affects the problem of modification of Coast Highway and the possible 4 utilization of a Fifth Avenue bypass, on development figures for the down - coast and Fashion Island areas furnished by the Irvine Company. Almost all of the excess traffic predicted for 1990, that is traffic over that presently handled on Coast Highway, will come from the downcoast development. This is shown by the link analysis on the Fifth Avenue bypass(published in the Phase II report of the consultant, Page21). In this link analysis, almost 100 per cent of the traffic carried on the bypass origianted or terminated downcoast. A substantial portion of this traffic's destination appears to be the Fashion Island Shopping complex. Projections for the growth of this complex were furnished by the Irvine Company. These growth pro- jections are subject to a fifteen times multiplier; for each retail employee one projects fifteen trips a day, thus substantially increasing the traffic load. This information also was supplied by'the Irvine Company. Thus, with respect to this traffic problem, the data on future development on both ends of the road is largely based on projections of growth by the Irvine Company in areas in which no prior experience is available. Note that even with all of these projections from the Irvine Company the traffic on Coast Highway in 1990 is only 8000 ADT over that currently carried. There is every reason to believe that both these figures furnished by the Irvine Company represent substantial overestimates. Fundamentally, they are based on the downcoast development of a population of 51,000 in 1990 with a mix of recreational and permanent residences that the Irvine Company believes will be in its best interest. This 51,000 population figure which has not been scrutinized and accepted by the various public agencies involved with -the development, will almost certainly be revised downward as time goes along. An example of this was reported November 11, 19735 in the Los Angeles Times. The State Coastline Conservation Commission has imposed population limits on the size of the sewer system that would 5 serve the Irvine Coast. Under the Commission limits, the Irvine Ranch Water District which covers the coast would be restricted to serving only 36,000 people, through the sewage treatment outfall. A reduction of the population increase on the coast from 51,000 to 36,000 (a.decrease of 30 per cent) would effectively lower the projected traffic increase on Coast Highway in 1990 to zero. There is a strong possibility that if the Cities of Irvine or Newport Beach are involved in planning the downcoast development, hillside homes, which would represent major portion of the 1990 population, would be re- stricted because of their uneconomical nature from the point of view of the tax burden on the rest of the population. One must conclude that , based on a variety of environmental and pollution considerations, it is highly unlikely that the present Irvine development plans for a population of 51,000 in the downcoast sector will be realized by 1990. (B) Mode of transportation projected to 1990 The second major development that was not considered quantitatively by the consultant possibly because the problem had not been dramatically presented at that time, -relates to the energy crisis (PhaseIll, page 26). Scientific opinion has known for a number of years that we are building to a real energy crisis in terms of exploitable petroleum reserves. We, quite simply, are running out of oil. And furthermore, we are running out of oil on the time scale which will be important in 1990. The best opinion (Scientific American, 1-971) indicates that oil production in the United States including Alaska will peak before 1980, Oil production world-wide will peak before 1990, if the projected increase in demand for energy is met by oil. In the most optimistic projections on oil avail- 11 C7 ability between now and 1990, it is anticipated that the price of oil will increase rapidly to several dollars a gallon. Indeed the price has increased 66 per cent over the past two years from a price of less than 30 cents per gallon to a price of about 50 cents per gallon (December 1973). Further, there is another factor involved in the energy crisis; over half of the known oil reserves and immediately available production facilities in the world are located in the Pii.ddle East. This area is reluctant to supply oil at very cheap prices to the rest of the world. It appears that we are coming to one of the transition points on our transportation mix much as happened when we changed over from horse and trains to automobiles. The falling automobile sales this year of full size cars confirm that we are in a transition period which must be taken ser- iously by planning agencies. Thus it is important to note that neither the consultant's plan, nor the Irvine Company's development plan on which the consultant's data were based for this downcoast development quantitatively takes into account this energy crisis which will surely restrict the use of automobiles. Both of their plans are based on the private auto as almost the sole means of transportation in 1990. This, of course, seriously over -estimates the traffic load for 1990 (see Phase III page 27 for the consultants warning on this point). Transportation will also lessen the traffic load on Pacific. Coast Highway.(public transportation)'. The increase in public transportation will be spurred by high fuel costs, since these modes of transportation are fuel efficient compared to automobiles, and will also,be,.tha-subjeat of government support. Already in its first year of full scale operation, the Orange County Transit District has removed the equivalent of 400 cars a day from Coast Highway. The -Orange County Transit District plans to increase service indicate that in the next five years they will be removing thousands of cars a day from Coast Highway as people are diverted from • 7 cars into buses. Thus, the anticipation on the basis of these considerations is that traffic on Coast Highway may very will drop substantially below present levels in terms of average daily trips (C) Impact of air pollution on automobile travel - Another factor which will reduce the rate of growth of automobile transportation in this area is the air pollution problem in the Los Angeles basin. The Environmental Protection Agency plans to severely ration gasoline and curtail parking to achieve clean air as mandated by law for 1975• of course, with the energy crisis the plan may be moot, but there is no doubt that we must as a region clean up the air pollution which at present represents a serious health problem. The consultant did not quantitatively include this pollution problem in his projection, but instead warned that agencies considering his report must estimate its seriousness and realize that concern with the environment in increasing (Phase III page 36). Additionally, we should recognize that the Environmental Pro- tection Agency is charged with controlling the development of new population centers such as the Irvine coast to ensure that the environment is not degraded by these developments. This new control element will surely modify and retard the growth of the downcoast area. In summary, every identificable factor affecting the rate of downcoast development tends to reduce the rate of population growth and traffic increade in the time frame to 1990. They indicate that the consultant's projections, in themselves, axe inadequate to support a Fifth Avenue Expressway, and substantially overestimate the rate of traffic increase on Coast Highway. (D) Projected Pattern o-f-Tr`affic'FlowFto"1990. Traffic consultants freely admit that the pattern of flow as contrasted with the amount of traffic is the most difficult variable to predict. This is especially true in a situation such as the coast development,, where there are no existing driving patterns to give one insight into M co=unity driving habits. This arises because each motorist is free to take alternative routes and will do so if he finds one route is slower or less pleasant than another. Our guess,as residents of the area, about the pattern of traffic flow is probably better than the consultants because we live here. Almost everyone who has throughly studied the alternate routes downcoast believes that the consultant has underestimated the amount of Coast Highway traffic that will be diverted to the Bonita Canyon Freeway. Traffic will divert because the major source of jobs, schools and shops are in that direction. Now there are no alternative routes to Coast Highway, but when the downcoast network is built, there will be a number of altern- ative routes available.to downcoast traffic. For example, 11,00 of the Coast Highway present 40,000 cars represent beach traffic, moving up and down the Coast Highway. A substantial proportion of this traffic would be diverted by the Bonita Canyon Freeway, Thus, we'estimate the pattern of traffic flow in 1990 will have less cars using the Coast Highway than presently use it. 2. The Physical Presence of the Fifth Avenue Bypass Would be a Blight on Our community Corona del Mar is a fine place to live and visit.. We want to keep it as a traffic terminus not as a corridor. The construction of the Fifth Avenue Expressway, a six lane, limited access road, would effectively make Corona del Mar a corridor, channeling traffic through it that does not have Corona del Mar as its particular destination. The Fifth+Avenue Expressway would b'e a blight on our community because it would encourage y unneccesary traffic to come through the residential area of the city. This traffic would contribute noise pollution, air pollution, and the visual pollution of having this major barrier in our community. In Southern California the freeways effectively act as natural barriers between 0 G communities. The Fifth Avenue expressway would delete one of the three roads crossing the freeway corridor, further isolating the upper part of town. The surest way to destroy the character of Corona del Mar is to put a freeway -type highway through it. The visual effect of the road would certainly be that of a freeway. Many of our schoolchildren would have to cross this barrier on their way to schools. 3. The Presence of the Fifth Avenue Expressway Would Act as an Attractive Nuisance. The Fifth Avenue Expressway would act as an attractive nuisance for the city of Corona del Mar in two senses. First of all, it would attract traffic because, it probably would be quicker to take the Fifth Avenue route than the Bonita Canyon bypass to some points in Newport Beach. Therefore, this expressway will tend to divert traffic off of the adequate Corona del Mar freeway extension down Bonita Canyon. A certain percentage of this traffic, especially in the summer, will find it convenient not to proceed to the beaches downcoast, but to the Corona del Mar beaches. This will overcrowd these beaches and make them less available for the residents and for the people who legitimately seek them out for their major destination because of their beauty. In a more profound sense, the Fifth Avenue Expressway is an attractive nuisance because it alone is capable of handling all the downcoast traffic projected to 1990, eliminating the need for the Bonita Canyon Bypass. Thus, if the Fifth Avenue route were to be approved, one would run the grave danger that the Corona del Mar freeway wouid'be extended down MacArthur to meet the Fifth Avenue Expressway which would then be extended to the downcoast developments. The Fifth Avenue Expressway might be called an expressway, but under those conditions it would be functioning as a bonafide freeway carrying a tremendous amount of traffic through Corona del Mar. 10 4. Adverse Effects of a Fifth Avenue Expressway on the Corona del 1&%r Business District Construction of the Fifth Avenue Expressway will hurt the local merchants by shunting their share of the new downcoast business directly to Fashion Island. An examination of the growth rates downcoast indicates that there is no need to ban parking on the Coast Highway. Over 160 merchants have joined us in opposing the Fifth Avenue Expressway and opposing a modification of parking on the Coast Highway. The merchants are justifiably concerned about parking near their businesses but not at the price of walling off the Harbor View area from their shops or of diverting any new downcoast development off of Coast Highway. 5• The Citizens of Corona del Mar Oppose the Construction of a Fifth Avenue Expressway. The citizens of Corona del Mar and Newport Beach have spoken very clearly on the Fifth Avenue Expressway. They clearly want no expressway cutting their town in half: 1. Harbor Area Freeway Fighters gathered 20,000 signatures opposing the construction of a freeway in Newport Beach which would have gone in the Fifth Avenue corridor. 2. The Citizens Coordinating Committee gathered 10,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot to kill the use of that overall. corridor. 3. 85 per cent of the electorate voted to kill a "freeway agreement" which used the Fifth Avenue corridor. specifically. -•• -•-- - - - -- --• - 4. 85 per cent of the electorate voted for and the State ratified a Charter Amendment prohibiting the construction of a freeway or an expressway in our city without a vote of the people. 11 5. The Consultant's report says that the Fifth Avenue plan is an Expressway (Phase TII, page 81). 6. As a part of this consultant's report, Behavior Science Corporation did an $18,000 study regarding public attitude. As a primary find- ing the study says "building a new major highway parallel to the existing Coast Highway is strongly opposed by knowledgeable individuals, by in-depth discussion groups and by a major survey"(Basico Study, page 35, Point 18). The use of Fifth Avenue received the lowest rating of acceptability (see Phase II, page 18). In conclusion, the people of Corona del Mar don't want the Fifth Avenue Expressway which would degrade rather than enhance their communities. There is no rational reason why it should be built because the road is unnecessary. We request that you accept the recommendation of the con- sultant for this area that the Fifth Avenue Expressway nctbe built and that the Corona del Mar Freeway be relocated through Bonita Canyon to bypass Corona del Mar. On the basis of our analysis, we request that the parking on Coast Highway be continued in its present state. There is no compelling reason to change the parking patterns. CAY OF NEWPORT PEACH MEMORANDUM: FrOM Administrative Assistant to the City Manager Community. Development Director January 15 74 ............. ie........ SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM H-3(f) On the Consent Calendar of the January 14, 1974 Council meeting agenda, Council referred a letter from The Irvine Company regarding the Newport Beach Traffic Study -Phase III, to staff for inclusion in study. 04�%-cP H—fxlc� Reply wanted ❑ Reply not necessary NI.20. � a C-j u E December 21, 1973 City oi' Newport Boach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Boach, California 92660 Attention: Mayor Donald A. McIrunis Subject: Newport Beach 'Traffic Study - Roview of Phase III Final Report Gentlemen: THE IRVINE COMPAW 550•Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 17io Irvine Company has recently reviewed the subject report prepared by Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. This letter is submitted to the City with the intent of assisting it in assembling such factual information pertinent to its deliberations on adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan as our analysis of the report and its con- clusions has generated. As TIC is a concerned citizen of the City of Newport Boach, wo hope the City will give consideration to our thoughts on the study and urge that it take those actions necessary to objectively meet the trans- portation needs of Newport Beach in the best interests of long range planning. As set forth in the Phase III Report, the transportation system should "be a public service element which enhances the ability of the community to thrive and prosper in a pleasant onvironnent under a planned program of physical and economic growth aid development." Communities which have not made provision for adequate transportation systems have generally withered over time or have of necessity uidertaken major, and painful, surgery to correct the situation at a later date. At this juncture Newport Beach still has the opportunity to plan a trannsportation system responsive both to the character and needs of the community. Upon deletion of the Pacific Coast Freeway from the State Freeway and Express- way Plan it was understood that Newport Beach would undertake transportation studies designed to detcnAno the alternative means of providing a compre- hons.i.ve transportation system to meet the needs of Newport Beach and would proceed to implement the best alternative practical. Although the Newport Beach Traffic Study 11us reasonably well identified the problem and a number of possible solutions, the system recomiiendediin the Phase III Final Report does not meet the goals of the traffic study and in our opinion, would result in negative impact on the future economic and environmental health of Newport Beach. The recoimicad•ltions of the report are based more on presumed public acceptance and support than on the original goal of meeting identified traffic servrco needs, as is noted on page vii of the Final Report. We urge that the City carefully consider adoption of other alternates examined by the DO NOT BEMOVE City of Newport Beach December 21, 1973 Page 2 consultant or additional alternate's- beyond those considered in the Final Report, with the goal of removing traffic deficiencies identified by the traffic study. In our rovicw of the report we feel the criteria for plan evaluation and selection are valid. fIowever, it should be noted, based on our observation of the deliberations of the Citizens Advisory Committee, that the rating of alternate network plans A, B - C and D as a whole was of little significance other than establishing a starting point for consideration of specific traf- fic facility improvements. It was impossible to provide a meaningful comparative rating of each overall. system with each composed of so many different alternates and elements. We foLnid the Committee evaluation of the individual elements of the overall traffic system to be the more meaningful effort. The consultant's exposition of Transportation Systems Principles in Chapter III is excellent and in our opinion very helpful in establishing a perspective on transportation planning and problems as related to Newport Beach. Based on recent information published by the Orange County Transit District, we must take exception with tine optimistic outlook, on Page 35, that rapid transit development in the coastal corridor might be considered as a substitute for the former freeway. The present OCTD proposals to be considered for adoption in January 1974 do not provide any coastal corridor for mass transit. It has been stated by the District there is not adequate justification for a fixod rail or exclusive bus lano transit provi- sion within this corridor on a cost efficiency basis. They are forecasting a Countywide ridership of G% of all trips and feel this projection is opto- mistic. Though this conclusion may surprise many of us, we feel it indicates serious doubt as to the viability of a mass transit alternate in the coastal corridor. The private auto or its offspring and more conventional bus ser- vice are likely to be the dominant means of carrying traffic within the coastal corridor in the foreseeable future. Some other general observations appear to be in order:; First, through the report did not give major emphasis to this fact, it should be recognized by the public that local traffic needs are by far the dominant traffic generator within the Newport Beach transportation system. The select link analyses contained in the Phase II Summary Report clearly support the conclusion that most traffic has an origin, a destination or both within Newport Beach on the critical links of tho traffic system. Second, as it relates to peak hour traffic congestion which is the critical consideration, it should be noted that Newport Beach has gone from an essen- tially rosort,transiont-rosident community to a permanent resident community and is still in transition to a mature community. As we mature further, more of us will be able to live, work and shop within the immediate area. City of Newport Beach December 21, 1973 Page 3 Though this is a very positive trend in terms of energy conservation related to long distance travel, it will also result in an increase in concentration of traffic during peak hour periods over that which we experience today. Thus, whereas a daily volume in today's community may be tolerable, the same volcano as tine community matures would produce severe peak period traffic con- gestion. Third, with regard to the land use assumptions and resultant traffic genera- tion of the traffic study, the consultant noted on Page A-3 of the report that corrections of assumptions for acres outside Newport Beach were made early in Phase II of the study. What he fails to note is that the DRA tabu- lations for land use within the City of Newport Beach are in error related to existing, zoned and planned land use to a very significant extent. Ac- cording to our calculations the trip generation for Newport Beach zones should actually be increased. Fourth, during community debate on the Newport Beach Traffic Study, the alle- gation has been made that TIC gave intentionally high estimates of land use to the consultant for its coastal lands. It should be understood that the land use information provided by TIC reflected lowered population projections from those of the County's officially adopted 1964 Orange County Southern Sector Irvine Ranch General Plan, which would have been the alternate source of information for the consultant. Within the 10,000 acre coastal slopes our projection was for a population of 5i,000 versus 89,00O on the County plan. With regard to the specific recommendations of the Phase III Final Report, we submit the following comments: 1. The major recommendation of the Final Report is that the City actively seek a rerouting of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Bonita/Coyote Canyon alignment and continuing downcoast behind Laguna Beach. By letter dated October 15, 1973 (copy attached) TIC supported study o£ the feasibility of such a bypass. Our own independent traffic studies support the desir- ability of study of the rerouting. Through traffic without origin or destination in Newport Beach would be encouraged to bypass the City if the rerouting were accomplished. However, as our letter noted, even if the freeway reroute concept is accomplished, and regardless of the level of development which may occur on the Irvine coast, there is still a -future need for further significant traffic facility improvements in Newport Leach to provide adequate service, particularly in the Corona del Mar aroa. City of NeiA=t boacli December 21, 1973 Pago 4 2. Of those further reconmtendations which affect Irvine Company developments directly, wo concur with the Final Report recommendations for Projects 5, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 280 29, 30 and 32. As a point of clarification, the cost apportionment noted for Projects 17, 26 and 32 is incorrect as the sharo of costs would be in accordance with the City's adoptod Capital Improvement Financing Policy. 3. Project 6 recommendations for PCI-I between the Upper Bay and Jamboree indicate future capacity deficiencies at the Jamboree/PCH and Bayside Drive/PCH intersections. We feel the City should determine what steps would bo necessary to eliminate these future capacity deficiencies and are not aware of any reasoning by which deficienqies would have to be tolerated at these intersections if a plan for their removal could be forthcoming. If, as indicated in the assessment of various highway options along P0.1 from Jamboree to Dover Drive, an interchange at Jamboree would remove the noted deficiency, we feel the present is the appropriate time to consider this option. The project 7 proposed widoning of PQ-I to six lanes from MacArthur to Jamboree appears appropriate. Again, we feel the means of preventing deficiencies projected at the intersections with PCH should be defined in order to consider them for current adoption. We are particularly concerned with any potential left turn limitation at Newport Center Drive, as deletion of this move could have a major impact on the internal circulation system and its capability within Newport Center, as well as shift traffic to other critical arterial links. Regarding Project 7, we feel further consideration should be given to the alternate proposals encompassed by Project 21A. We are conceptually in favor of the one way couplet composed of Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, but feel the proposal as outlined is not in sufficient detail to allow full consider- ation at present. In our opinion this approach may eliminate the need for an interchange at MacArthur and Pai, which was one of the alternates for correcting deficiencies at that location. S. The recommended Project 8 solution for traffic service through Corona del Mar,assuming part time parking prohibitions at peak periods to pro- vide six marginal traffic lanes,in no way approaches a solution to the traffic problem. A daily traffic deficiency of 18,000 two way trips is notod by the City's consultant. The system is inadequate even with the assumption that we have a Corona del Mar Freeway reroute bypass. Further, based on our perception of public_opinion on this issue we question that the probable public support level is as high,as the "good" to "poor" rating noted in Option 2 of the assessment of various highway options in Corona del Mar. This option lna_s appeared equally unpopular to that of the Pifth Avonue corridor bypass. City of Newport peach Page S December 21, 1973 Based on our analysis of the projected Voorhees traffic volumes there is little question but that full time parking prohibition from early morn- ing to Late evening would be necessary. The highway would actually fail in bumper to bumper congestion even without parking for two hours in the morn- ing and four hours in the afternoon. This is based on our earlier obser- vation that although current daily traffic volumes are relatively high, the peak periods are not as severely pronounced at present as they will be in the future. As a result of this traffic deficiency on P(TI, business fronting the highway would be devastated as has occurred in other communities. Acci- dents, hazard to pedestrians and pollution would be severe due to con- gestion. Of major importance to all residents of Corona del Mar is the fact that frustrated motorists 'would in great numbers seek alternate routes on local residential streets. In our opinion a rerouting of Pa•I through the Fifth Avenue corridor, coupled with the inland rerouting of the Corona del Mar Freeway, is the most appropriate traffic and environmental solution for the Corona del Mar area. The at grade roadway proposed in Project 8A is not an appropriate design for this bypass. The highway should be depressed along the Fifth Avenue corridor with grade separations provided at Goldenrod and Marguerite. Though many are concerned that the depressed roadway implies a freeway, the fact is that depression of an arterial highway is by far a more environ- mentally desirable solution than is a road at grade. It should be emphasized that this is the only traffic solution considered by the City's consultant which would alleviate traffic deficiencies pro- jected for Corona del Mar. Voorhees' assessment of various highway options in Corona del Mar makes this fact clear. It should be reiterated that the deficiencies exist on all other alternates even with rerouting of the Corona dol Mar Freeway. Need for the bypass exists despite the free- way rerouting because of the preponderance of traffic with origins and/or destinations within the City of Newport Beach. Y City of Newport Beach Page G December 21, 1973 Plans are in existence which protect the elementary school and provide for relocation of the youth center. All Harbor View Hills properties held by TIC were designed with the right-of-way for the Pacific Coast Freeway in mind and knowledge of its expected existence in the corridor was available to buyers. With this in mind, construction of a lesser facility in the form of a POI bypass in this corridor, though obviously unwanted by adja- cent homeowners, might be considered as a reasonable tradeoff for the accomplished deletion of the freeway. Ile recognize that considerably mixed reaction exists on both of the alternates; that of increasing the capacity of Pal through removal of parking, and that of providing a bypass along the Fifth Avenue corridor. In our opinion, com- parison of the two in terms of their capabilities and impact on the overall comnunity, favors the Fifth Avenue bypass over changes to existing PCH. ' G. On Project 14, an analysis of the extent of traffic deficiency forecasted for Dover Drive should be made related to the possibility of eliminating a second Upper Bay crossing. Proposals for alleviating said deficiency in some alternate manner should be discussed. Project 21 for widening State Route 73 from PCII to San Joaquin Hills Road should be considered in comparison with the alternate of a one way couplet composed of Avocado and MacArthur as described under Project 21A and pre- viously discussed. Regarding Projects 22 and 23 for widening Route 73 to six lanes from San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison Avenue, consideration should be given to the potential need for interchanges at San Joaquin, Ford and Bison designed both to provide for ultimate traffic capacity needs if at grade signal- ized intersections are inadequate, and perhaps more importantly, to con- sider the OCPD desire to provide for exclusive bus lanes with grade separ- ation at cross streets as a part of its transit corridor plan. 9. Project 31 for Avocado Avenue from PCI-I to San Joaquin Hills Road should be considered in comparison with the alternate one way couplet plan for Avocado and MacArthur described in Project 21A and previously discussed. City of Newport Beach December 21, 1973 Page 7 10. Projects 33 and 34 essentially provide for a second crossing over Upper Newport Bay. We believe an analysis of the necessity and desirability of these proiects should be presented by the consultant. This proposal is essontially a paralleling of existing Jamboree, PCH and Dover Drive with little significmwt difference in concept from these facilities. This alternate has not been analyzed within the technical alternates considered by the consultant in the past. Wo appreciate the opportunity of presenting this information and our concerns to the City. We hope it will be helpful to the City in its deliberations. As in the case of the energy crisis the traffic problem was identified long ago. In the case of energy needs, the problem was ignored and we are now to suffer the consequences. We hope the traffic crisis will be acknowledged and that its remedies will be determined and implemented. Sincerely, Cordon B. Jones Director of Engineering Planning GBJ:lab Attachment cc: Mr. Joseph Devlin, City of Newport Beach Mr. Ben Nolan, City of Newport Beach Mr. Robert Wynn, City of Newport Beach Mr. William Agee, Chairman, Newport Beach planning Commission COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT %ACH Special Planning Commission Meeting f m p m Place: City Council Chambers 2 P p Time: 7:00 p.m. Gn11 PeT ne+o. .7�nu�,+v In 107n. MINUTES 1-3.1q wcv Present X X X X X X I EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director David R. B.aade, Assistant City Attorney Ben Nolan, Assistant Public Works Director STAFF MEMBERS Rod Gunn, Advance Planning Administrator Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer Bill Foley, Senior Planner Joanne Bader, Secretary Motion X Minutes of December 13, 1973 were approved Ayes X X X X X X as written. Beckley abstained because he Abstained X was not present at that meeting. Item A-1 Public Hearing - Request to .consider the adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and acceptance of Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB - 73-045. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach. Mr. Hogan informed the Commission that the first item on the agenda is the continued hearing on the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan., He stated that the Commission has made a number of decisions on this element and that the votes and decisions that were, made are listed in the Minutes of the last special meeting. He stated that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss those items that were not previously discussed and on which decisions were not made. He informed the Commission that it is the staff's intent, after the Commission has completed their hearing on this element and has adopted it, to,put it in a form for presentation to the Council. He stated that if the Commission takes action tonight and unless that action is extremely complicated, the staff expects to be able to put the item together that they will present to Council and bring it to the Commission on the 17th to be sure that the staff has incorporated in it the Commission's intentions. FILE COPY -1- DO SNOT REMOVE COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT 4REACH Y �, ft m m m�y=� y< ,c January 10, 1974 ROLL CALL m MINUTES r inuex The Commission discussed the fact that they have been receiving letters on the 5th Avenue bypass. Mr. Parker felt that the Commission was not furnished with any substantial evidence concerning the merits of the 5th Avenue bypass and only received evidence to the contrary. He felt that the Commission is being criticized for something for which they had no evidence. The Commission voiced their disappointment that the people who are criticizing them did not come to the public hearing to voice their opinion. Chairman Agee then opened discussion on Projects 33 and 34 of the Consultant's report which provide for a second crossing over Upper Newport Bay. He then read these projects for the Commission and audience. Chairman Agee then opened the public hearing on these projects. There being no one desiring to .be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Chairman Agee stated that there was testimony on that item from Willard Wade, who represented the Dover Shores Community Association at the Commission's December 13, 1973 Special Meeting. He read from the Minutes that Mr. Wade is opposed to Projects 33 and 34 as listed in the Phase III Report because he is concerned with any additional roads that might bring additional traffic. He further read that Mr. Wade felt that adding this traffic would add noise and air pollution to the area and that the people of Dover Shores who live facing the water do not want to look at an additional bridge. Chairman Agee mentioned that this is a very low - priority item and a very expensive one. The Commission felt that some consideration should be given to making the new bridge at Coast Highway extra wide so that the two bridges could be combined: Chairman Agee stated that the only reason for really studying this second crossing was that a lot of people only use the short segment between Jamboree and Dover to get around the bay and that since there is no other way, it puts an overload on that one segment. -2- COMMISSIONERS S CITY OF NEWPORT VEACH 9 Q' 2 r ,min r :"c -Aj0 January 10, 1974 ROLL CALL MINUTES The Commission discussed the possibility of widening the existing bridge, the fact that the bridge would contain 6 travel lanes and two right -turn lanes at Dover, and discussed whether the bridge is a bottleneck. Mr. Nolan stated that the bridge is substandard in more than one way; it is substandard as far as width is concerned and it is substandard structurally. He stated that the bottlenecks on Coast Highway are the signalized intersections and that the congestion shows up at the bridge. Mr. Nolan stated that the capacity that can be developed crossing the bridge is going to depend on the design of the new bridge which is constructed and the design of the facilities that serve the bridge. Mr. Nolan stated that if the interchange is not constructed on Dover Drive then some drastic intersection widening and treatment is going to be needed to try to provide an acceptable level of service through that intersection. In response to the Commission's question as to who would pay for the interchange and the grade separation, Mr. Nolan stated that Coast Highway is a State Highway and that it would be the City's position that improvements to Coast Highway, including the interchange at Dover Drive would be the state's responsibility He further stated that knowing the funding limitation that exists on the part of the state as well as the City, the state and others have talked about project priorities being increased by localcooperative participation. In response to the Commission's question as to what would be involved in making Dover Drive a major road, Mr. Nolan stated that it would involve the widening of the easterly side of the road. He further stated that it would be physically feasible since the easterly side is undeveloped, except for the present interim development in Ba3 Shores. The Commission then questioned if this was studied by the Consultant. Mr. Nolan informed them that a study was not prepared on this. The Commission questioned how they can adopt a project of this significance without the Environmental Impact Report which they will study after they have acted on the Circulation Element. -3- COMMISSIONERS * CITY OF NEWPORT IVEACH Y � n m Z A A n on, I re11 m January 10, 1974 MINUTES --- - inuex The Commission had a general discussion as to whether they should adopt the second bay crossing as a low -priority item or eliminate it. Motion K Motion that Projects 33 and 34 be deleted from Ayes X X X X X the Circulation Element. Noes X Chairman Agee then opened discussion on the Project 14 description which provides for the widening of•.Pover Drive from Westcliff Drive to Coast Highway. The Commission discussed that since they have already voted to delete the Second Bay Crossing whether it would be appropriate to increase Dover from the Coast Highway 17th to major road status. The Commission then decided to discuss Projects 14 and 15 together. Mr. Nolan pointed out that the upgrading of the portion in Project 14 does not imply an upgrading in the classification of Project 15. Chairman Agee opened the public hearing on Projects 14 and 15. There being no one desiring to be heard on these segments, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. The Commission questioned that if they upgraded Project 14 to a major status, considering their previous action of eliminating the second bay crossing, would there still be traffic deficiencies forecasted for the future. Mr. Nolan answered that if this is upgraded to major status, there would be no traffic deficiency. ' The Commission then questioned whether it would be physically possible to have six lanes tied into 17th. Mr. Nolan answered that in the case of this particular project, he thinks that the widened Dover Drive from Coast Highway to -4- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT 41EACH S o A N G1 n y m p ON M rc P January 10, 1974 MINUTES --- - -- raven Westcliff could be accommodated fairly well because the traffic that will be using that street will split in two fairly major streams; one, northerly on Dover Drive into the West Bluff residential area, and the other westerly on Westcliff Drive and into the commercial area, thus providing two arterial highways connecting to one arterial highway. Motion X Motion to adopt a major road status for the All Ayes section from Coast Highway to 17th for Dover Drive. The Commission then questioned whether they need to go to a 4-lane divided or l-eave it as a primary on the extension of Dover (Project 15). Mr. Nolan stated that he does not feel there has really been any evidence presented that calls for consideration of a change of the primary status of the portion extending northerly of Westcliff and connecting to Irvine Avenue. The Commission questioned whether Dover Drive north of 17th is presently classified as a primary road modified. Mr. Nolan informed them that it is. Mr.,Nolan stated that he feels it is important in discussing this item to remember that the arterial classification of the roadway is not changing regardless of whether or not the implementation of Project 15 is recommended by the Commission in this case. Mr. Nolan stated that the adoption of Project 15 by the Commission would constitute an endorsement by the Commission that at such time as the traffic demands required, the Commission would endorse the concept of the conversion to a one-way cuplet operation. Mr. Nolan mentioned that this does not make any change in the width of the roadway but that it would increase the traffic handling capacity. The Commission then had a general discussion on the status of the cul-de-sacing from Mariners to Irvine. The Commission questioned whether the impact of the potential traffic flow that might be -5- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT %ACH n m x p January 10, 1974 ROLL CALL ^ MINUTES INDEX generated, had been considered in light of the proximity of the Mariner's Park and school, etc. Mr. Nolan stated that he does not know if that point was discussed during the conduct of the traffic study. He did not feel that this change would,1generate additional traffic but would enable the traffic that is there to be better handled. The Commission discussed that this area is a highly- travelled area by pedestrians, children, bicycles, etc. and whether it would be wise to speed up traffic. The Commission also discussed the speed limit that would be imposed on the street. Mr. Nolan stated that there would probably be some improvements in pedestrian safety particularly because in crossing either half of the roadway, one would have to look out for traffic approaching from one direction only rather than two directions. He added that he thinks that the tendency of the driver on the street would be to travel a little faster than if the two-way streets were retained. Mr. Seely stated that he believes that in that area there is no particular danger of encroachments on the existing right-of-way so if the matter were to be taken up again some time in the future, it could be conveniently done. He stated that in the meantime, he is hesitant to route a heavily - travelled route through what is a residential area and particularly with the park and school. He felt that a minimal diversion is involved to send people down 17th and up Irvine if that is the particular direction they want to go. lotion X Motion to delete Project 15. lyes X X X X X X loes X Chairman Agee then opened discussion on Projects 21, 22 and 23. Mr. Hogan informed the Commission that in Project 21 there is a 21-A which calls for a cuplet below San Joaquin Hills Road from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road on -6- COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT EACH YC ^` Y m y O m ry m m �m me ? m A m ROLL cau. m a January 10, 1974 MINUTES Invcn Avocado and MacArthur. Chairman Agee then opened the Public'Hearing on these projects. There being ,no one desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Chairman Agee reviewed the Consultant's recommendations for the Commission and audience. Mr. Nolan pointed out a map error on page 60 of the report, Project 23 which should show State Route 73 going from Ford Road to Bison Avenue. Motion X Motion to accept the Consultant's recommendations All Ayes on Project 21 to widen Old MacArthur Blvd. between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Motion Motion that projects 22 and 23 be approved All Ayes with modifications discussed earlier. * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Hogan then brought up the Corona del Mar freeway which is not shown as a project in the report. He suggested that the Commission consider whether or not they want to take a position on the relocation of the Corona del Mar freeway into Bonita Canyon. Mr. Hogan stated that this is not shown as a project in the report because it is not in the City, and consequently, it isn't a project that the City will undertake. Mr. Hogan stated that this route is shown on the map as a route that "requires further study and coordination" because it does require the coordination of at least three other jurisdictions; the state, City of Irvine and the county. Chairman Agee then stated that he thought that at the meeting of December 13, 1973 it was decided that the map would say "requires further coor- dination" because the Commission did not want to imply that they would start all over and study it again. Mr. Hogan stated that the word "study" can be removed from the map to read "requires further coordination". -7- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT %ACH Z P P A Qn„ Derr m January 10, 1974 MINUTES -" INDEX Chairman Agee then opened the public hearing on this item. Calvin McLaughlin, Corona del Mar stated that re-routing the Corona del Mar Freeway through Bonita Canyon freeway is an essential element of the circulation pattern through Corona del Mar since if one doesn't have this, one will not be able to handle the anticipated traffic flow without other modificiations which would tend to disrupt the character of Corona del Mar. He urged the Commission to go on record as favoring this re-routed freeway per the Consultant's report. In addition, he stated that he hopes they have read the white paper that he prepared about the general circulation through this area and that it would show them that the Corona del Mar Freeway is a vital thing that is recognized by the Consultant. There being no others desiring to be heard on this item, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. lotion X Motion that Planning Commission recommend that 01 Ayes the city adopt the Consultant's recommendation for the Corona del Mar freeway routing through Bonita Canyon. * * * * * * * * * * At this point Mr. Seely brought to the attention of the Commission that Project 7 was not listed in the Minutes of the Special Meeting of December 13, 1973. Chairman Agee stated that he thought the Commission voted on this item and accepted the recommendations of the Consultant (Option 2 which calls for the widening of the Coast Highway). The Commission then questioned if there is an interchange proposed. Chairman Agee stated that there was an inter- change proposed at one time. He stated that the interchange was proposed primarily if it tied into a 5th Avenue alignment. He stated that this was the reason for one of the options with an interchange and that it was not really necessary with no 5th Avenue alignment. -B- i COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT OACH 10 q m n m m"m gym ? < Z A ,� January 10, 1974 onu cell m_ MINUTES "- - IWYCA Mr. Seely stated that one of the reasons for Project 21-A, the two-way cuplet, was to avoid some of the problems that would other- wise exist at the interchange of State Highway 73 and Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Seely then asked if the increased traffic capacity of widened Route 73 would increase the problems at the interchange with Pacific Coast Highway to such an extent that Alternate 21-A be given more consideration by the Commission. Mr. Nolan stated that he believes the Study has identified a deficiency and a problem there and that is why the alternate showing an interchange was considered. Planning Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * Chairman Agee read Option 2 of Project 7, which SiN�e rr is the Consultant's recommendation for the WNS FouNO Commission and audience. rHE fHhT Motion X Motion to accept the Consultant's recommendation. Cpmm. Alp VO?� O Then Mr. Seel stated that on the y question of TNIs .1�`eM an interchange at MacArthur and 73 there is a great deal of available space where or vt the zoo use to be, etc. so there is sufficient peg,/3,157 land to accommodate an interchange with little /NTG./ rN effect. A* S 14e.TION Commission discussed some of the deficiencies podmo that would result in not having an interchange. S1VVRa/p. BOTH lid/ Mr. Seely felt that because there will be later review and E.I.R.'s etc. and if it appeared WOO that there were some environmental detriments poge/NA60 that would offset all of the benefits that might 7 NE be realized from an interchange, then it could I. be easily deleted from the Plan. Mr. Seely ��7V /'/ stated that to him, Option 3 seemed to be the /v►TG' 'Selo far -better alternative and that it might relieve JVT6S' whatever problems remain by virtue of h1/N not having a 5th Avenue bypass and would -9- MINUTES --' " INDEX do so with very little impact on Corona del Mar. Chairman Agee expressed his disagreement with Mr. Seely because he felt Option 3 was listed primarily to accommodate the 5th Avenue corridor. He felt that the Traffic Consultant would express that if he were at the meeting. He felt that there is no demonstrated need for the interchange. The Commission discussed the fact that this interchange would be financially the state's responsibility. Chairman Agee expressed his regret that the Consultant was not present to defend his position. Mr. Seely felt the concern of the residents was that an interchange would make a 5th Avenue bypass more necessary. He stated that this doesn't appear to be the case and would provide benefits to the whole city as stated by the Consultant. Chairman Agee re -opened the public hearing because the Minutes did not show that a vote was ever taken. Calvin McLaughlin, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that if the Commission could picture in their minds the kind of high -volume interchanges that are at least 25 feet high, they would have the appropriate mental picture and it would compare with three-story and two-story buildings. He felt it would have an adverse visual effect. He stated that because of the added expense of building it, the visual impact, and the fact that you are placing high-speed traffic onto the Coast Highway, there is hardly any sense in building another high-speed inter- change. The Commission discussed the reasons they felt the interchange is necessary, discussed the importance of continually -moving traffic and -10- COMMISSIONERS *CITY OF NEWPORT 11ACH January 10, 1974 Qni l rel l m MINUTES explained that they are not necessarily talking about high-speed interchanges. Mr. Nolan stated that the primary function of the interchange would be to separate the heavily- confl-icting left -turn volume from MacArthur Blvd. southbound onto Coast Highway eastbound. He further stated that the presence or absence of 5th Avenue is irrelevant as far as the major traffic movements are concerned. Chairman Agee felt that because there is a light planned at Avocado which is fairly high on the priority list and a light already in operation at Golden Rod, that it doesn't seem necessary to build an interchange at MacArthur if people are going to be stopped at Avocado and Golden Rod. There being no others desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. lotion X SSE N°rc 9 Substitute motion to adopt Option 3 for Project 7 lyes X X X X X of the Circulation Element of the Plan. P�9 bE loes X X Chairman Agee stated that it was unfortunate that the Consultant was not present at this meeting. He stated that because of an error in the procedure of the last meeting or in the Minutes, a major segment of the items they had discussed at their last meeting had been turned around from the Consultant's report without allowing him to give the logic of his reasoning. The Commission then questioned why the Consultant was not at the meeting. Mr. Hogan answered that it was because he appeared before the Commission earlier and the Commission had adequate opportunity to question him. He further stated that the Consultant's contract did not call for him to be at this meeting and that the Community Development Department didn't have mon6y to pay him for it. Mr. Parker requested that the record show that he did not agree with the Chairman's last statement and that although he voted with the Chairman, he did so for different reasons. The Commission voiced their disappointment that the Consultant was not present and stated that they had assumed he would be at the meeting -11- JTES --- - -- since this meeting was a continuance of their meeting of December 13, 1973. Chairman Agee then stated that he felt the best thing to do would be to recommend to the Council that if they have a continued meeting that they have the Consultant there for both stages. * * * * * * * * * * •Chairman Agee opened the public hearing on the traffic study for items that haven't yet been Inuen discussed in this Plan. There being no one desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Mr. Seely stated that he is concerned with the extension of University Drive at the upper end of Newport Bay. He questioned whether or not the necessity of that route warrants the intrusion into a very significant open space and then as it continues over toward Newport Blvd., a residential area. He stated that people could use the Newport Freeway and the Corona del Mar freeway. He felt that this perhaps would be a duplication, and unnecessary to have this proposed major road coming down through that area. Nolan that if looks the Mr. stated one at map, they can see the tremendous hole in the arterial street system that is created by the presence of the upper bay. He stated that the freeway is not a substitute for the local streets that are needed to accommodate local traffic and that the projected volumes that demonstrated the need for University Drive do take into account the presence of the Corona del Mar freeway. Mr. Nolan stated that Mr. Williams, of the Friends of Newport Bay addressed this subject briefly at the previous hearing and indicated that he was not particularly fond of having additional streets such as University Drive bordering on the bay but that he did recognize there was a problem that had to be resolved and that if the use of a street such as -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT %ACH £ A p P January 10, 1974 Z DMi Leis m MINUTES INUCA University Drive could lessen the need for additional bridge crossings of the bay, then although he may not like it, he would be willing to accept it. Mr. Gunn stated that the staff is also concerned about the potential impact but there is an E.I.R. report budgeted for this segment and that this type of concern is better taken up at the project stage. Mr. Nolan stated that there is money budgeted in this year's budget and in fact it will be by far the most comprehensive E.I.R. that has been prepared within the City for a City project. Motion X Motion to delete Projects 28, 29, and 30. Chairman Agee voiced his disagreement with I Mr. Seely's motion and again stated that he wished the Consultant could have been at the meeting to speak of the importance of this route. He stated that the Consultant does state quite clearly that this new roadway is very important within 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 the Corona del Mar freeway is substantially delayed. Mr. Nolan stated that westerly of Irvine Avenue the street is known as Del Mar and is located in unincorporated Orange County territory and in the City of Costa Mesa. He stated that both of those agencies do project the widening of Del Mar to an arterial standard and that right-of-way acquisition is well advanced for those projects. Mr. Gunn stated that perhaps the Project 30 description, to be consistent with other sections of the report should be eliminated from the report since it is outside of the City limits and our proposed sphere of influence. Mr. Seely discussed that it is difficult for him to accept as a reason for adopting this route the fact that the Corona del Mar freeway may be delayed. -13- COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m N mZROLL CALLA p January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX The Commission questioned what the projected deficiency would be. Motion X Motion to delete Projects 28, 29 and 30. Motion Ayes X Failed. Noes X X X X X X Motion to approve the Consultant's recommendation Motion X on Projects 28 and 29 and eliminate Project 30 description. Motion X Substitute motion that the route be approved and Ayes X X be given a Class B priority. Mr. Seely's reason Noes X X X X X being to simply defer the consideration or action on University Drive so at least to give an opportunity for other improvements to be constructed before final action is taken on this proposed route. Motion failed. Motion X Original motion to approve Consultant's recommenda Ayes X X X X X X tion on Projects 28 and 29 and eliminate Project 3 Noes X description. Mr. Seely then brought up Project 26. He stated that a map of this project appears on page 62 which is the Bison connection between Jamboree and MacArthur. He mentioned that this is given low priority. He stated that he is uncertain as to the need for this as it does deadend essentially on Jamboree with the exception of the residential street coming out of East Bluff and serves only a relatively small area of proposed light industrial. Mr. Seely stated that this particular inter- section of Jamboree and Bison is a substantial problem as it now stands and stated that he doesn't really see why new traffic flow couldn't be served by Ford Road and the northerly intersections. Mr. Nolan stated that the street serves a couple of functions, 1) when it is completed and extended easterly, it will connect to Bonita Canyon Road and that it will provide service from the general overall eastbluff area into the University area and 2) it will provide service to the industrial area north and south of Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. He stated that neither of those industrial properties are very heavily developed at present. He stated tftat traffic studies that were prepared for Aeronutronic a number of years ago showed the -14- COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT •BEACH January 10, 1974 ROLL CALL MINUTES INDEX critical importance of Bison Avenue. He pointed out that the present Master Plan of Highways carries a major street classification for Bison Avenue (a 6-lane divided street) and the recommended composite plan recommends the reduction to a primary classification which would make it four lanes. He felt that probably the reduction in classification can be defended on the basis that there is not likely to be an interchange with the Corona del Mar freeway at that location. lotion X Motion that as an alternative to proposed Project 26 that Bison Road be 2 lanes. The Commission clarified that Mr. Seely's motion is to change Bison Road from the way it is today at 6 lanes and the Consultant's recommendation at 4 lanes and leave it as 2 lanes. The Commission recalled that when they approved the P.C. for that area no plan was made to provide a bike trail and that later it was recognized that there was a need for one. The Commission then questioned if it would be possible at this point in this Element to include that. Mr. Gunn stated that procedurally the Commission would have to hold a public hearing and amend the Master Plan of Bikeways. lotion X Motion that as an alternative to proposed Oyes X XI J Project 26 that Bison Road be continued to foes X X X MacArthur in its present configuration which is 2 lanes. Motion failed. Motion X Motion for approval as stated in the report. At this time Mr. Gunn pointed out that the report is in error because it'calls it a major road and that it should be a primary road as shown on the map. Motion X Motion for approval as stated in the report Ayes X X X X with change listed above. Noes X X X -15- COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORTBEACH y�mqn m m � m ➢� m � :c ` Z A P 0 ROLL CeLI mm January 10, 1974 MINUTES INDEX The Commission questioned what Project 36 does to the 38th Street park. Mr. Gunn replied that the City Council has recently considered this specific project. He further stated that it was one that the staff went back to the Council and asked for clarification on what the Council's policy was on it. Mr. Gunn stated that as he recalls, at that time, the Council wanted to construct the widening of Balboa Boulevard from 44th to Coast Highway and see how that functioned before proceding. Mr. Nolan stated that this is correct. He further stated that the widening from 44th to Coast Highway is in the present year's program and, in fact, is going out to bid now. He stated that the Council directed the staff to hold in abeyance any plans for widening from 33rd to 44th. Mr. Gunn stated that widening would take place on the north side where the 38th Street park is located so there would be right-of-way taken from that park. The Commission, at this time, discussed the possibility of enlarging the park by acquiring property toward the water side to compensate for this loss of park space. Mr. Gunn stated that this consideration was eliminated from the Recreation and Open Space Element. Mr. Gunn then stated that however, within the Recreation and Open Space Element there is a proposal for an additional park at the extension of 32nd Street which is in this general area. He added that one of the reasons this proposal was added to what previously was contained in the interim Open Space Plan was the possibility of Balboa Blvd. being widened in the area of the 32nd Street park. He then stated that this was an attempt to arrive at a compromise solution between two conflicting public needs. The Commission then questioned whether this Project should be given a priority higher than a "C". -16- Y COMMISSIONERS • CITY OF NEWPORT BREACH Y m n m mFm RMi re11 m January 10, 1974 MINUTES Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes X X Motion that Project 36 be approved subject to the condition that any future widening be accomplished without a net reduction in existing city park facilities in the general area. Motion to adopt Resolution 873 recommending' approval of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan incorporating the corrections discussed earlier and subject to the acceptance of an E.I.R. INDEX Item A-2 Discussion - Recommendation of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the City Council on Revision to the Development Standards. Bill Foley then appeared before the Commission i to summarize the history of some of the changes that have been made. He stated that the original committee's report was submitted to the Planning Commission at their public hearing. He stated that the Commission made some changes in the parking formulas as it relates to the R2 district, changing basically what was a ecommendation for 3 spaces in any structure up to 2400 sq. ft. plus 1 for each additional 600 q. ft. to 1 for each additional 400 sq. ft. stated that this made the parking in the R2, 3, and the R4 all consistent. He further s ted that when the report went on to the City ouncil, they referred it back to the Citizens mmittee. The Citizens Committee has now rec0mme ed that the parking requirement be changed back t 3 spaces up to 2400 sq. ft. and 1 additional sp ce for each 600 sq. ft. He stated that the other change that the Commission originally made was in he open space option, it was originally the hei ht times the width times 5 ft. in West Newpor and Balboa Peninsula and 73-, feet in Corona del Ma. He stated that the Commission changed that to ft. across the board and restricted it to t front 12 feet of the structure. He stated at the Citizens Committee concurred with th Planning Commission action at that time. He th n stated that the third item that the Council re rred back to the Committee was the question of he limitation on the number of stories. He stated the Citizens Committee concurred with their original recommendations and the Commission's recommendations so the only area that there is a difference now between the -17- I December 28, 1973- Mr. William Agee, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Agee: I was extremely gratified by your resolute stand on December 13 against the use of a Fifth Avenue alternative as a part of the master traffic plan for Corona del Mar. You wisely chose to accept the recommendation of the traffic consultant and simply modify Coast Highway. Due to a staff oversight, the white paper which I prepared for you, listing in brief form the reasons against a Fifth Avenue alternative, was not available to you prior to your decision. During the discussion period I was aware that some members of the Planning Commission did not understand all of the compelling reasons against using the Fifth Avenue alternative, beyond the fact that the citizens of Corona del Mar are resolutely opposed to the use of that alternative. This suggests that it may be helpful if you do read the white paper which I left with you. I think it represents a careful study by a group of dedicated Corona del Mar citizens. Not every argument against the Fifth Avenue alternative is presented, but many of them are. Additionally, I would like to point out that all through the traffic patterns in Newport Beach we are continually projected as having traffic in the excess of street capacity. It is important for you to recognize that these nominal capacities for streets are assigned on the basis of engineering standards that are applied nationwide and do not take into account many of the unusually circumstances of our traffic patterns. Some of these unusual.-, circumstances are, first, we have a very favor- able weather pattern so that we do not have to allow for jam-ups during unfavorable weather. Secondly, and probably most important, the traffic tends to be more dispursed throughout the 24 hour period than in many cities. This is because the industry which supports Corona del Mar and Newport Beach tends to have widely varying opening and closing hours. Thus, there is not a tremendous five o'clock rush, although it is cert- ainly the peak hour here as elsewhere. Thirdly, when roads do become overcapacitated, as the consultant pointed out last night, there is a tendency for the traffic to divert to other major streets. Right now Coast Highway is the only road through Corona del Mar, but when the rest of the grid is built there will be a number of roads which will be available for people to take -if Coast Highway becomes conjested. Fourthly, each individual street due,to the pattern of cross traffic, really rep-' resents a unique situation and cannon be fully described with these average national criteria. Again, I want to complement you on your astute judgement in recommending against the use of the Fifth Avenue alternative in Corona del Mar. It certainly will help a number of the citizens of Corona del Mar rest easier. Sincerely, Calvin S. McLaughlin COMMISSIONERS * CITY OF NEWPORT EACH 13. 9 v SpeCidl ro< Place: Time: ROLL CALL m Date: Present Excused Motion Ayes Excused Planning Commission Meeting City Council Chambers 7:00 ,p.m. December 13, 1973 MINUTES X X X X X X X EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director David R. Baade, Assistant City Attorney Ben Nolan, Assistant Public Works Director STAFF MEMBERS Rod Gunn, Advance Planning Administrator Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer Joanne Bader, Secretary X Minutes of November 29, 1973 were approved X X X X X X as written with the understanding that the last X page, which was inadvertently typed on an old Minute form, be retyped on the correct form. Request to consider the adoption of the ort Beach,Gen�r�l Circulation Element of the Newpnm flan and acceptance of Enviroent'Imoact al Deport EIR/NB - 73-045. Chairman Agee explained that the adoption of the Circulation Element, is an item that has Public Hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council. Chairman Agee then read the staff recommendations to the audience. In response to Chairman Agee, Mr. Hogan clarifie the recommendations of the Staff for the Plannin Commission and informed the Commission that Mr. Al Krier of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates would be speaking to discuss the recommendations of the Voorhees' firm. Mr. Hogan explained that the Phase III report is the final report of the Consultant and that it was originally presented to the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee for review. Mr. Hogan stated that this is the first time the Traffic Study, as a whole, has been presented before the citizei of Newport Beach for public hearing. Chairman Agee questioned the word "study" on the map entitled "The Newport Beach Circulation Element - Master Plan of Streets and Highways" FILE COP' DO NOT REMOVE is COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORAEACH n m mnm y.� � mrc � Z A p P on„ Fe11 toDecember 13, 1973 MINUTES INDEX because he felt it implies that the City may have some doubt as to whether these areas should be considered. Chairman Agee felt that the word "coordination" alone would be sufficient. Mr. Al Krier of Voorhees and Associates then appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss the Phase III report. Mr. Krier informed the Commission that the first phase of the study was Problem Identification which was completed in September of 1972; the second phase was Developing Alternate Solutions which was completed in March, 1973; and the third phase was Plan Selection and Implementation which was completed approximately 6 weeks ago. Mr. Krier then discussed the evaluation process and plan development features with the Commission. Mr. Krier discussed the constraints on the plan in detail; the most current constraint being the energy crisis. He stated that as a result of this crisis, some street and highway improvements may not be needed. He also stated that the gas tax funds used for such impro•ve- ments may also be reduced. Mr.. 'Krier discussed the fact that.public transportation is becoming greater than at any time. since the 1940's. Mr. Krier stated that Voorhees and Associates have been working with the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory'Committee and the City staff for about 2-1/2 years. At this time Mr. Krier thanked the Committee through Chairman Agee and thanked the City staff for their assistance in helping Voorhees and Associates develop the Transportation Study. In response to a question by the Commission, Mr. Krier discussed the problem of summer beach traffic and informed the Commission that the City of Newport Beach could not possibly enter into a program to handle beach traffic without the assistance of the surrounding agencies such as Costa Mesa, the County and Irvine. At this time Chairman Agee opened the Public Hearing and asked for comment on the Consultant's recommendations in Corona del Mar. Norman Weinberger, Corona del Mar, presented to the Commission a copy of a petition from the citizens and businessmen of Corona del Mar. -2- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT 9EACH n m m mf yZ m y< j° on,I rell December 13, 1973 m MINUTES - IMMA At this time, Mr. Weinberger read the petition to the Commission. He stated that the petition contained the signatures of 4,531 residents including 56 merchants from Corona del Mar. Mr. Weinberger stated that the signers of the petition are 1) Opposed to an expressway along Fifth Avenue, 2) Support the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway through Bonita Canyon and 3) Want to insure the businessmen and women on the Coast Highway are protected. He stated that the petition does not support the removal of parking on the Coast Highway. Mr. Weinberger pointed out that the only public meeting on Phase II indicated that people are against the Fifth Avenue alignment. He further stated that the most obvious opposition is an 85% vote in 1971 to delete the Pacific Coast Freeway running from Buck Gulley westerly, which is exactly the area in which a possible expres.sway would be built on Fifth Avenue. Wallace Calderhead, Corona del Mar, presented to the Planning Commission a letter and petition. He informed the Commission that the petition consisted of 134 signatures of Corona del Mar merchants -in opposition to the use of Fifth Avenue in Corona del Mar and in support of the use of Bonita Canyon. At this time Mr. Calderhead read the cover letter to the Commission. Mr. Calderhead further mentioned that also on his petition were the signatures of 100 residents of Corona del Mar. He stated that this petition is identical to the Corona del Mar Citizens' Petition Committee's except Item No. 3 of the petition. He stated that Item No. 3 in this group of petitioners differs only by supporting the continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Mr. Calderhead then introduced Mr. Jim Blakemore to the Commission. Mr. Blakemore stated that a vast majority of the residents of Harbor View Hills and all the members''of the Board of Directors signed the petition supporting the Traffic Consultant's recommendations. He respectfully requested that the Planning Commis- sion specifically endorse the statement on page 21 of the final report as to the importance of constructing the Corona del Mar freeway on a Bonita Canyon alignment. He stated that of the -3- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF N EWPORT EACH m mFm Ta � mrs, ROLL CALL m A p December 13, 1973 MINUTES INDEX approximately 5,000 persons who signed the petition, about 1/2 live south of Fifth Avenue. He stated that contrary to the opinion of one local newspaper, these clearly are not the opinions of just a few people whose views would be impaired by a freeway -type road. Calvin McLaughlin, Corona del Mar, informed the Commission that on December 6, 1973 he submitted to them a white paper discussing the traffic patterns in Corona del Mar from MacArthur Blvd. east. He stated that in summary the report supports the relocation of the Corona del Mar freeway through Bonita Canyon. He felt that it would be more sensible to slightly modify the Coast Highway instead of constructing the Fifth Avenue expressway. He then reviewed some of the considerations that were covered in his white paper. He felt that the Traffic Consultant's report overestimates the traffic estimate in 1990 because the energy crisis, the pollution and public transportation would' decrease the amount of traffic. He stated that because air pollution is very high, the E.P.A. has proposed severe parking restrictions which would effect the downcoast development, and in fact, all of the downcoast development had to be scrutinized. Robert Sanshay, Harbor View Hills, stated that on the map the new MacArthur Blvd. -is tentatively routed to the Coast Highway through undeveloped Irvine Center property. He stated that this would indicate 10 lanes back and forth from San Joaquin Hills Road down to the Coast Highway. He believed that this should be rejected because he felt it would do nothing but serve the City of Irvine residents. He stated that the MacArthur Freeway alignment would be inappropriate and felt that the people of Newport Beach could encourage routing around the City by rejecting it. He felt that the most,appropriate site for the Corona del Mar freeway would 6-e Bonita Canyon Road because it is presently vacant and future planning could be made accordingly. H. W. Lenton, Newport Beach, stated that he was vice-chairman of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, which reviewed -4- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORAEACH P m 2 2 •° '° m ' [� m 10on,i re,i m A December 13, 1973 MINUTES --- - INDEX the Consultant's recommendations. He stated that although he has great respect for the people of Corona del Mar and their concern, he felt that they are overreacting in the matter. He stated that it is difficult, if not impossible for a community to be able to visualize what it may be like 10 to 20 years from now. He felt that the petitions presented have been made with the assumption that it is possible to maintain the parking on Coast Highway and get by without a Fifth Avenue by-pass. He stated that the Citizen's Committee spent many hours trying to work that compromise but that it would not work. He felt that the City should retain all of its options, and not go completely one way or the other at this time. He said that this plan would take approximately 10 years to implement and that the Fifth Avenue decision need not be made at this time. He then recommended that the Planning Commission keep their options open. Roy Jordano, Corona del Mar, stated that he represented the Corona del Mar Highlands Association as an attorney 10 or 12 years ago when they met in objection to the then -proposed Coast Freeway. He stated that after the tremendous amount of time, work and expense that has gone into this matter, it was illadvised that no action should be taken in connection with the Fifth Avenue. He stated that those people, who are satisfied with not just the way things are now but also the way they want things in the future, have taken the position that they want the Planning Commission to approve the report as made by the Consultant. Paul Hummel, President of Corona del Mar Civic Association stated that the petition has a virtual unanimous support of that association. He felt that it is possible to look 15 years into the future because many people have seen what cities have done in the coastal areas in the past by allowing the freeways and highway patterns to develop to the extent that it is no longer a desirable place to live. For this reason, he felt that the people are entitled to express their concern for the future and to emplore the Commission to look favorably on that which will preserve the quality of living in the community. -5- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT %ACH m m y-1 x m MINUTES December 13, 1973 Q01.1. CAi 1. �^ Ronald Barthalamew, Corona del Mar, stated that it has been shown in history that as a major highway is built, the traffic, people, and industry also increase so that by building a by-pass, two streets are cPeated that are shortly over capacity. He stated that if the parking on the Coast Highway is eliminated, there will be increased generation of air pollution. He advised the Commission that those people who live immediately adjacent to the freeways in Los Angeles, according to recent editorials and articles in the Los Anoeles Times are being exposed to poisonous substances that may be extremely harmful to their health. He stated that this problem is accentuated in this area where there is a prevailing westerly breeze that picks up the smog and blows it directly into the faces of the residents in the Harbor View Hills area. He submitted that the primary consideration of the Planning Commission is not how to increase traffic but how to reduce smog. He felt that the Commission should take action now to commit themselves to that course. Ester Kabak, Corona del Mar, stated that she has noticed that after crossing Dover on the Coast Highway, there is very little traffic even during summer usage. She stated that no matter where a person lives, if the bridge is not widened or some sort of alternate route made available to divert traffic, there will still be a bottleneck. Calvin McLaughlin then reappeared before the Commission and stated that the fifth Street alignment plus the agreed -to Corona del Mar freeway alignment down MacArthur would be' sufficient capacity to carry all the traffic generated downcoast. He felt that the Bonita Canyon freeway might become estranged under those conditions. He felt that this would accentuate the problems mentioned earlier such as extra air pollution, extra people on the beaches and extra parking problems throughout the community. Dr. Nichols, Corona del Mar, asked since it has already been decided that MacArthur would be a six -lane divided highway, that the new MacArthur Blvd. would be a 4-lane divided highway, and the San Joaquin Hills Road would be a six -lane divided highway, were the changes proposed for -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT EACH pn„ f.S„ M December 13, 1973 MINUTES -" -- INDEX these roads taken up in public hearing. Mr. Hogan stated that whenever the Master Plan is altered, a public hearing is required, and that these proposed changes are available from the public offices of the City for all people. Mr. Hogan then discussed the procedure necessary to change a plan. Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Chairman Agee asked for comment on the Consultant' recommendation for widening Coast Highway to six lanes from MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Road. Marilyn Murphy questioned how the widening of Coast Highway westerly of MacArthur Blvd. would effect the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar which is only 4 lanes. Chairman Agee stated that in that particular section there was less impact and more open area and also that it would serve traffic better between Jamboree and MacArthur. He further stated that it would not necessarily imply that all traffic going through this area would go down into Corona del Mar, although some of it probably would. There being no others desiring to be heard on this segment, Chairman Agee asked for comment on the Jamboree to Dover Drive segment which included the bridge discussion. Willard Wade, Newport Beach, representing the Dover Shores Community Association, stated that the Association is concerned with any additional roads into the area that might bring additional traffic. Mr. Wade stated that the Association is opposed to Projects 33 and 34 as listed in the Phase III report for that reason. He further stated that adding this traffic would add noise and air pollution to the area and that the people of Dover Shores who live facing the water do not want to look at an additional bridge. -7- COMMISSIONERS -. CITY OF NEWPORT EACH ti m mi 2 December 13, 1973 MINUTES INDEX There being no others desiring to be heard on this segment, Chairman Agee asked for comment on the Consultant's recommendation for parking prohibitions at selected hours on the Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard, along with recommending off-street parking spaces to replace any lost on -street spaces that would occur during the selected prohibitions if it became necessary. There being no one desiring to be heard on this segment, Chairman Agee asked for comment on the new alignment for Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard. Dr. Dick Nichols then reappeared before the ' Commission and asked what exactly the new alignment would be. Chairman Agee informed Dr. Nichols that the correct alignment is shown on the map. Dr. Nichols then asked about leaving the existing bridge rather than cul-de-sac Coast Highway. Chairman Agee stated that the recommended proposal seemed to be compatible with the wishes of the community. Suzanne Rudd, representative of the Newport Shores Community Association stated that in a unanimous vote by the Board of Directors, the Association is in complete support of the cul-de-sacing of the Coast Highway. She stated that the Association hopes that their input would be allowed in•further studies as far as the precise location of the Highway. John Weller questioned the possibility of the state objecting to the proposal to cut the state highway to make a cul-de-sac. Chairman Agee answered that the state would have a great deal to say about the matter as well as other agencies, such as Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. He further stated that this would require extensive public hearings. There being no others desiring to be heard on this segment, Chairman Agee asked for comment on all areas. -8- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORTIEACH MINUTES December 13, 1973 Ester Kabak then reappeared'before the Commission and asked the Commission whether the Coast Highway would also be widened between Jamboree Road and Dover Drive. Chairman Agee informed her that it would. He stated that this section of Coast Highway did get upgraded to six lanes because it was necessary to fit in with the sugges'ted bridge configuration and adding additional right -turn movement lanes to allow free -flowing movement straight ahead to cut down the bottleneck that exists there. Ms. Kabak then asked if the new development going in on the south side of the Coast Highway between Jamboree and Bayside would have a road with cars exiting to Coast Highway. Ben Nolan stated that there is a road from Promontory Point exiting directly to the Coast Highway and that he believes the distance is approximately 800 to 1,000 feet westerly of the present Jamboree Road intersection. Ms. Kabak then questioned whether a traffic signal at this location would create a back-up with people still at the intersection of Jamboree and Coast Highway because it is so close. Chairman Agee stated that the City Council discussed alternatives which were an underpass left -turn movements, making only right -turn movements out of the project and putting a light in, and that it was the advice of the then Traffic Engineer that it could be coordinated so that the traffic would not cause a problem. Ms. Kabak then questioned how definite the propos is to make San Joaquin Hills Road go east in the direction of Laguna. Chairman Agee advised her that this has been on the Master Plan for quite some time and that the probability of it going through would be about 99%, although there is still some question as to the size it will be. Paul Hummel stated that it is his understanding that the Traffic Study recommends that parking -9- COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT41EACH f� m m A m YS � i MINUTES �, £ = m m Z 1 % 10p December 13, 1973 INDEX along the Coast Highway in old Corona del Mar will be removed during peak hours and felt the determination of those peak hours is of great interest to the business community. He felt that they would want to know very definitely what those hours are likely to be before they are implemented. He stated that although there is some suggestion of alternate parking available somewhere, he does not know where that is and that everyone knows that this would be terribly expensi e and probably economically impossible. He further stated that he has personal ideas about the shoppi g area being made more attractive in this area and that he is going to talk to the Chamber of Commerc there about perhaps developing a theme to make it more attractive to people who come into the area. He felt that these people could do a service to themselves by improving the shop ability of the area. He felt that if parking is stopped, it would impair the chances of the new, more -attractive shopping area before it has begun. He stated that he does not feel that the traffic on the Coast Highway is that bad at the peak hours that people can't live with it. He then asked the Commission to consider this when they consider changing the parking on the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Calvin McLaughlin reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the engineering figures for average daily traffic are very standardized across large regions of the country and that they don't take into account regional variances. He stated that one might wonder how the citizens of Corona del Mar manage to get by with such grossly -overloaded streets. He felt that the real demonstrative capacity of the roads should be kept in mind. Barbara Eastman, Citizen's Environmental Quality Control Committee stated that the Commission asked the Committee to review the report and comment. She stated that the very term "traffic study" implies cars, and that al- though the Committee realizes the Consultant mentioned other means of. transportation in the report, they wish to see the Circulation Element speak specifically to other types of transportation. Ray Williams, representing Friends of Newport Bay stated he is very pleased to see that -10- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT 1EACH q�^ v m n m December 13, 1973 Qn� � ne, � m • MINUTES -" - INDEX Upper Newport Bay still does not have any roads crossing it. He stated that he is concerned about a small section of marshland adjacent to Back Bay Drive. He stated that the Friends of Newport Bay would oppose Back Bay Drive being widened to four lanes because that would add to the traffic burden, noise, etc. which would interfere with the wild life values of that area. He also commented on the University Drive portion at the upper end of the bay which is proposed to become six lanes. He stated that this seems to be a lot but felt that this may relieve some traffic pressures. He stated that the Friends of the Bay would not like to see any additional roads along the bay. He felt that as an alternative to this, the proposed University Drive would be more acceptable than any sort of crossing in the bay. Jim Blakemore stated that in attending various meetings in June and July he noticed that Exhibit D was passed out with the traffic deficiencies shown therein and since that time the Consultant has made reference to some of the recent trends that may result in the need for fewer traffic improvements than is anticipated. He stated that while the text of the report deals with some of these factors, the assessment of the various options of Appendix D still show the same figures for traffic deficiencies shown many months ago. He wondered if these recent developments wouldn't have some effect, if not a large effect, on the traffic to be generated in the future. There being no others desiring to be heard, Chairman Agee closed the public hearing. Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on the recommendation of Project 8 of the report relating to parking prohibitions on the Coast Highway at selected hours. Chairman Agee stated that he supports the recommendations of the Consultant. He stated that time -controlled parking, if ever necessary, should be limited to two one -hour peaks, one hour in the a.m. and one in the p.m. He also stated that the City should develop an improved off-street parking plan for the Corona del Mar commercial district whether time- -11- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT41EACH Y �, (� m m � Z P A December 13, 1973 ROLL CALL MINUTES INDEX controlled parking is ever needed or not. He stated that this has been discussed in the past and that there are committees currently looking into this. Chairman Agee felt that this should be stated in the section. The Commissioners then had a general discussion relating to time -controlled parking, whether it would be desirable to retain the Fifth Avenue area as an alternative and whether it would be appropriate to send more than one recommendation to City Council. Motion X Motion to accept the Consultant's recommendation Ayes X X X X X X and use the Project 8 description as the basis Excused X for developing the text of the element along with time -controlled parking, if necessary, limited 'to two one -hour peaks, also indicating the policy that the City will continue to look at additional off-street commercial parking and that the Fifth Avenue corridor was considered and rejected as an alternative because of lack of community support and other considerations. Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on the recommendation of Projects 5 and 6 which provide for the construction of a bridge on Coast Highway across the Bay to replace the existing bridge and to widen the Coast Highway to six lanes from Jamboree Road to the proposed Upper Bay Bridge replacement, respectively. The Commission questioned the possibility of saving the old bridge. Mr. Nolan then informed them that the bridge would require an unduly amount of maintenance. Motion X Motion to accept the options described in Ayes X X X X X X Projects 5 and 6. Excused X * * * * * * * * * * Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on the recommendation of Project 4 which provides for parking prohibitions at se- lected hours on Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard to gain additional street capacity. -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORTIEACH m o m a m p i " p December 13, 1973 onu rsi, T MINUTES -"' - INDEX Chairman Agee suggested as a clarification to the Project 4 description that time -controlled parking, if necessary, be limited to two one - hour peaks and also that the City should continue to develop off-street parking in this district whether time -controlled parking is,ever needed or not. Motion X Motion to accept the option described in Project 4 Ayes X X X X X Y with the clarification described above. Excused X Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on Project 3 which provides for the construction of a new interchange on Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard. The Commission questioned the possibility of saving the old bridge. Mr. Nolan stated that although the bridge is in rather good shape, it would be difficult to widen. The Commission then discussed whether this bridge could be considered a historical monument. Motion X Motion to accept the options described in Ayes X X X X X X Project 3. Excused X * * * * * * * * * * Chairman Agee then opened discussion among the Commissioners on Projects 1 and 2 which provide a new alignment for Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard. Mr. Nolan stated that it is clearly the City's intent and policy that the reallignment of the highway include the cul-de-sacing of the present highway. He felt that the present Master Plan should also include the existing highway as it is and that this would be a slight modification to the verbatim wording of the recommendation. Motion X Motion to approve Projects 1 and 2 as Ayes X X X X X X recommended by Staff. Excused X * * * * * * * * * * -13- 4otion ayes _xcused X X X X X X X X At this time Chairman Agee reviewed some of the specifics in the plan that the staff has included on their map. Chairman Agee questioned the difference in the alignment of the Newport Freeway on the maps because they seemed to differ but in other respects looked the same. Mr. Gunn stated that he felt perhaps the solution to this would be that the Master Plan should be more generalized. Chairman Agee stated that the composite plan as recommended by the Consultant is a more generalized representation and that there are a lot of options being considered that really can't be put on the map. He felt that to give the Commission a point to start from, the map should be more general. Motion to conti ue this meeting until January 10, 197J. * * * * * * * * * * INDEX Planning Commission adjourned at 11:35 p.m. JOSEPH ROSENER, JR., Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach -14- i� Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 197 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 10, 1973 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJ: Request to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and acceptance of Environmental Impact Report EIR/NB - 73-045. Background At their meeting on November 8,, 1973, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 863, setting a Public. Hearing for December 13, 1973, to consider adoption of the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. At their Study Session on December 6, 1973, the Planning Commission reviewed the contents of a report entitled "Newport Beach Traffic Study, Phase III - Plan Selection and Implementation Program" prepared by the City's Traffic Consultant, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. The Commission was informed by the staff and the Chairman of the Transportation Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee that the Phase III - Traffic Study represented the recommendations of the Consultant and did not necessarily constitute the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Phase III - Traffic Study has been distributed to all of the homeowners' associations as well as each of the adjacent cities, the County of Orange, and the State of California. Legal Requirements Section 65302 of the Government Code requires that local General Plans include: "A circulation element consisting of the general location and,extent of existing and proposed major thorobghfares, transportation routes, terminals and C FILE UPS DO 'NOT REMOVE -2- facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan." 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 circulation needs of the community, 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 description of the proposed circulation system and the interrelationships'among system parts. E. Standards and criteria for the location, design, operation and levels of service of circulation facilities. F. A guide to the implementation of the circulation system." Master Plan of 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 Master Plan of Highways is identical to the "compos,ite plan" recommended by the Traffic Consultant with the following exceptions: 1. In West Newport, the present alignment and the proposed relocation of Pacific Coast Highway are shown as "routes that require further study and coordination". 2. The proposed second crossing.of upper Newport Bay is shown as a "route that requires further study and coordination". 3. The present alignment of MacArthur Blvd._which is the adopted route of the Corona del Mar Freeway and the proposed Bonita Canyon alignment of the Corona del Mar Freeway are shown as "routes that require -further study and coordination". 4. The proposed extension of 17th Street to an intersection with Pacific Coast Highway is shown as a route that requires further study and coordination. • ma C, 5. The termination of Superior Blvd. at Pacific Coast Highway is shown as a route that requires fur- ther study and coordination. 6. Santa Ana Avenue was eliminated from a secondary classification. 7. Irvine Avenue from Cliff Drive to Pacific Coast Highway was shown as a route that requires further study and coordination. 8. 16th Street between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive was added as a secondary. (As shown on present Master Plan) 9. 22nd Street within the City limits is shown as a secondary road instead of a rimary road. (As shown on present Master Plan 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 with the plans of the County and all adjacent cities. The proposed relocation of Pacific Coast Highway and the Corona del Mar Freeway, the second crossing of Upper Bay, and the extension of 17th Street have potential effects on cities adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, and, therefore, have been classified as routes that require further study and coordination. However, it is intended that the alignments'shown on the Piaster Plan of Highways for each of these routes represent the policy of the City of Newport Beach. Circulation Element Text The text of the Circulation Element will consist of a summary of the Traffic Study supplemented by additional material on public transit. The City Manager's office is at the present time working on a report on mini -bus systems, and when completed, this study will be incorporated into the Circulation Element text. A draft of the text on the Circulation Element will be submitted to the Commission as soon as possible. 1 Environmental Impact Report An -Environmental Impact Report will be prepared by staff with the assistance of Consultants. The primary potential impacts from the Circulation Element consist of noise, air pollution, and compatibility with land use. Wyle Laboratories, under contract with the City, is presently doing a study of existing and potential noise in the City of Newport Beach. The Environmental Protection Agency and the State Air Resources Board are presently working on criteria to evaluate the potential effects of a Circulation system on air quality. In addition the City has a contract with -Alan M. Voorhees and Associates to study the effect the Circulation system will have on the intensity of land use. Recommended Action The staff recommends that the Planning Commission- (1) Hold the Public Hearing (2) Direct the staff to incorporate any revisions to the map the Commission may want to suggest and (3) Continue this item until the special meeting of January 10, 1974. Representatives of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc. will be at the meeting to answer any questions the Commission may have. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By JSR ney L. Gun n Advance Planning Administrator RLG/jmb Att. (1) Newport Beach Circulation Element - Master Plan of Highways Change Deleted - sec. Deleted - sec. Upgrade fr. sec. to pri. Deleted Sec. Upgrade fr. pri. to maj. Added pri. Added pri. Upgrade fr. pri. to maj. Downgrade fr. frwy. to maj. Downgrade fr. maj. to pri. Upgrade fr. sec. to pri. Upgrade fr. sec. to pri. Added pri. Upgrade fr. pri. to maj. Deleted pri. Connected to Avocado Downgrade fr. pri. to sec. Added pri. Deleted Sec CHANGES TO CITY MAS. STREET AND HIGHWAY PLAN DO NOT REMOVE From To Bal. Seashore (Prof) Street 32nd Street Lafayette - 28th 15th Street Santa Ana - Beacon - Riverside University Dr. 32nd Newport Blvd. Superior Coast Highway Coast Highway Del Mar Irvine Jamboree Rd. Bristol Jamboree Univ. Dr. No. Von Karmon MacArthur Campus Drive MacArthur Campus Drive Univ. Dr. No. MacArthur Univ. Dr. No. Coast Hwy. Bison Jamboree Bonita Can. Santa Cruz San Joaquin Hills Newport Center, Rd. Drive Santa Rosa San Joaquin Newport Center Hills Rd. Drive San Miguel Avocado Newport Center Drive Newport Center Full Length Newport Center Drive Avocado San Miguel San Joaquin New MacArthur MacArthur Avocado Spy Glass Hill Rd. MacArthur San Joaquinn Hills 1.Rd. Unnamed Road 5th Ave. extend.San Joaquinn Hills Rd. 5th Avenue Coast Hwy. Unnamed Road C1 J Change Street Deleted Sec. Marguerite Upgrade fr. Coast Highway pri. to maj. Upgrade fr. Coast Highway pri. to pri. mod. Upgrade fr. Coast Highway pri. to maj. Upgrade fr. Coast Highway pri. to pri. mod. Deleted Coast Frwy. Upgraded fr. Balboa Blvd. sec. to pri. Deleted Sec. N-S unnamed red e'ly of Newport Shres. From To Coast Highway Ocean Blvd. W'ly Bndry. Newport Blvd. Newport Blvd. Dover Dr. MacArthur Coast Hwy. Coast Hwy. Dover Dr. MacArthur E'lv. Bndry. Some routes outside City not shown. Study Routes added. Newport Blvd. Balboa Blvd. • • V MODIFICATIONS TO COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL BILE COPY HIGHWAYS DO ]NOT REMOVE Changes Street , From To Delete Lafayette - 28th 32nd Newport Blvd. Upgrade fr. Balboa Blvd. C. H. Newport Blvd. sec. to pri. Alignment Balboa Blvd. C. H. 15th Upgrade for 15th Street Superior Coast Hwy. Sec. to Pri. Pri. Added 17th Street Newport Blvd. Balboa Blvd. Deleted Beacon -Riverside Santa Ana Coast Hwy. ' Deleted Irvine Ave. Cliff Dr. Coast Hwy. Deleted Santa Ana 17th Street Newport Blvd. Upgrade fr. Univ. Dr. ('Del Mar) Newport Blvd. MacArthur pri. to maj. Downgrade Bristol Jamboree W'ly fr. maj. to pri. Downgrade fr. Coast Hwy. Newport Blvd. Dover maj. to pri. mod. Upgrade fr. Santa Cruz San Joaquin Ring Road sec. to pri. Upgrade fr. Santa Rosa San Joaquin Ring Road sec. to pri. Added Pri. San Miguel Avocado Ring Road Downgrade fr. Bison Jamboree E'ly maj. to pri. Deleted MacArthur Blvd. C. H. Bonita Canyon Freeway (CdM Frwy) shown as maj. r d �n k= Deleted Marguerite C. H. Ocean Blvd. Deleted 5th Avenue C. H. Canyon Crest Changes Upgrade fr. sec. to pri. Upgrade pri. to maj. Add pri. Upgrade fr. sec. to maj. Upgrade fr. pri. to pri. mod. Add pri. Upgrade fr. pri. to maj. 46 Street Canyon Grest MacArthur Von Karmon Newport Blvd. Coast Hwy. Bristol Newport Blvd. r From To C. H. SJHR Bonita Canyon Jamb MacArthur Harbor MacArthur Jamb 30th Campus Bay B.C.L. Univ. Dr. No. C. H. FILE., AETIT av 106,9w va. To Cactl4l7r1D/U ' E�E//1E/UT FRom mE�T' a of _,QEd, /,J /973.. To: Honorable Mayor 'Donald A. McInnis and the Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: WHEREAS the citizens of Newport Beach have previously voted in overwhelming numbers to oppose the construction of a multi- lane highway artery through the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire to protect and retain the unique character and quality of their community, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire the protection of the general health, safety, and environment, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar do hereby join in this petition. NAME 1. We oppose the use of any portion of the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway route along Fifth Avenue for any highway - oriented use. We also oppose the construction of a freeway -type interchange between MacArthur Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway, 2. We support the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway via Bonita Canyon as a bypass for through traffic, 3. We support that there be provision for ample off-street parking in Corona del Mar prior to any limitation of park- ing on the Pacific Coast Highway and the retention of necessary left turns. `C ADDRESS GO'NOT RUAOVE M55nn4 qc -04C. 134il-73. DO 'NOT REMOVE AWOUr /=Rom /04,0. To: Planning Commission • From: CE1JCAC Subject: Request to review and comment on Newport Beach Traffic Study We agree with the report that, to quote, ''transportation is a vital public necessity but one which should serve rather than dictate.' Unfortunately, traffic study implies cars and though the consultant and the committee mention other means of transportation, the emphasis is entirely on moving cars. We therefore see the Circulation Element of the General Plan as the opportunity to expand on the traffic study by deemphasizing the automobile and emphasizing the park and ride philosophy. We state this as our basic philosophy because there is no way to move ever . increasing numbers of cars through the area without irreparably damaging the very atmosphere one wishes to enjoy. We endorse a pilot project to ascertain what is necessary to move people other than in private cars recognizing that incentives and restrictions are essential in changing patterns. We commend the report's -inclusion of bike trails for all new highway construction and endorse the statement in Goals and Objectives of Transportation which says:`•";:.'. a primary transportation goal is to provide a system whichoffersusers the opportunity to make a reasonabae choice of mode (such.as between private automobile, mass transit, local transit, ei)gling, walking`..` etc..)" ,If indeed this is a primary transportation goal then the circulation element must include more • specifics for implementation than does the traffic study. DO NOT REMOVE • Environmentally speaking we wish to call attention to the following: 1. University Dr: We ,question the necessity of a major 6 lane highway across valuable marsh and upland. We are aware that Friends of the Bay have accepted this alignment but only as a last resort. 2. 2nd Upper Bay Bridge: The visual pollution of this highrise structure we feel should prompt the consideration of every other alternative. 3. Bison: Possible damage to a residential area caused by the unique situation of the T formation of major highways abutting the residential area. 4. 5th Ave: The interim use of the 5th Ave. corridor as improved open space parkland. • r December 13, 1973 TO: Planning Commission FROM: CEQCAC SUBJ: Request to review and comment on Newport Beach Traffic Study We agree with the report that, to quote, "transportation is a vital public necessity but one which should serve rather than dictate." Unfortunately, traffic study implies cars and though the consultant and the committee mention other means of trans- portation, the emphasis is entirely on moving cars. We, therefore, see the Circulation Element of the General Plan as the opportunity to expand on the traffic study by de-emphasizing the automobile and emphasizing the park and ride philosophy. We state this as our basic philosophy because there is no way to move ever-increasing numbers of cars through the area without irreparably damaging the very atmosphere one wishes to enjoy. We endorse a pilot project to ascertain what is necessary to mov-e people other than in private cars recognizing that incentives and restrictions are essential in changing patterns. We commend the report's inclusion of bike trails for all new highway construction and endorse the statement in Goals and Objectives of Transportation which says: "...a primary transportation goal is to provide a system which offers users the opportunity to make a reasonable choice of mode (such as between private automobile, mass transit, local transit, cycling, walking, etc.)" If indeed this is - a primary transportation goal then the Circulation Element must include more specifics for implementation than does the traffic study. Environmentally speaking, vie wish to call attention to the following: 1. University Drive: We question the necessity of a major 6-lane highway across valuable marsh a �M -2 and upland. We are aware that Friends of the Bay have accepted this alignment but only as a last resort. 2. 2nd Upper Bay Bridge: The visual pollution of this highrise structure we feel should prompt the consideration of every other alternative. 3. Bison: Possible damage to a residential area caused by the unique situation of the T formation of major highways abutting the residential area. 4. 5th Avenue: The interim use of the 5th Avenue corridor as improved open space parkland. December 13, 1973 TO: Planning Commission FROM: CEQCAC SUBJ: Request to review and comment on Newport Beach Traffic Study We agree with the report that, to quote, "transportation is a vital public necessity but one which should serve rather than dictate." Unfortunately, traffic study implies cars and though the consultant and the committee mention other means of trans- portation, the emphasis is entirely on moving cars. We, therefore, see the Circulation Element of the General Plan ' as the opportunity to expand on the traffic study 'by de-emphasizing the automobile and emphasizing the park and ride philosophy. We state this as our basic philosophy because there is no way to move ever-increasing numbers of cars through the area without irreparably damaging the very atmosphere one wishes to enjoy. We endorse a pilot project to ascertain what is necessary to move people other than in private cars recognizing that incentives and restrictions are essential in changing patterns. We commend the report's inclusion of bike trails for all new highway construction and endorse the statement in Goals and Objectives of Transportation which says: "...a primary transportation goal is to provide a system which offers users the opportunity to make a reasonable choice of. mode, (such •_as. between private..automobi_le, mass transit, local transit, cycling, walking, etc'.)" If indeed this is a primary transportation goal then the Circulation Element must include more specifics for implementation than does the traffic study. Environmentally speaking, we wish to call attention to the following: 1. University Drive: We question the necessity of a major 6-lane highway across valuable marsh -2- and upland. We are aware that Friends of the Bay have accepted this alignment but only as a last resort. 2. 2nd Upper Bay Bridge: The visual pollution of this highrise structure we feel should prompt the consideration of every other alternative. 3. Bison: Possible damage to a residential area caused by the unique situation of the T formation of major highways abutting the residential area. 4. 5th Avenue: The interim use of the 5th Avenue corridor as improved open space parkland. ROUTE SLIP Date /4-zo a o v 4J- c ro4J o (a L c w e s Initials •r 41 O 4- -, E > o 7 4j N .-• Q N y LL Director Assist.Dir.- Plannin ssist.Dir.- Buildin v.P an Admin. Admin. Assist. I Director's Secretary A + COMMENTS From R 1 RES.(213) 794.9142 13•►-7 CLIFFORD D. WARD 7� 2167 N. SINALOA ALTADENA, CALIFORNIA 91001 December 11, 1973 G1 DF City of Newport Beach 4 Planning Commission ro City Hall Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: It has come to my attention that your commission is considering decisions that could eventually cause the imposing of a parking ban on the Coast Highway where it runs through Corona Del Mar. I own a building at 3535-3537 East Coast Highway which houses two businesses. Like other property owners and tax payers in the area, I have improved the property with the expectation that business could continue to be conducted at the location in the future. I feel that any ban of parking would be the death knell of all retail businesses on the Coast Highway with the resultant development of a blighted area, the loss of taxes, and an unfair disasterous economic burden on the landowners. I hope you will approve the development of the 5th Avenue alternate as an answer to the present and future traffic problem. Please do not take any action which will eventually cause the imposition of a parking ban on the Coast Highway. Sincerely, :mp A:;;;7 0/ DO NOT REMOVE �] J ✓�G BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHARLES W. HOSTLER, SR. Chairman JAMES LYNCH President HUGH B. COATE$ 17'aZiabntan RICHARD E. DUFFY Director JACK K. HAMILTON Director MARTIN E. HANSEN, M.D. Director RICHARD HAUSMAN Director G. W. McCLELLAN Director HARRY RINKER Director JAMES S. SLEMONS II Director RICHARD S, STEVENS Director ADVISORY BOARD OF DIRECTORS JOHN M. RAU Chairmmn President. DaNJlndustnes HON. ROBERT E. BADHAM Assemhlvnwn KENNETH W. CARLSON President, I'TN Consolidated, Inc. DENNIS E. CARPENTER Attorney at Law ROBERT W. CRECCA, M.D. Surgeon RICHARD C. ELLIOTT Executive Vice President, Don Koll Company, lnc. WILLIAM P. PICKER Architect R. H. GRANT Chairman, Grant Corporation JAMES L. GRAY Executive Vice President, Par (Vest Services, Inc W. P. HADLEY !resident. Hadlev Auto Transport ROBERT M. HIXSON, JR. Hirson Companies GLEN A. HODSON President, 11ansniond Organ & Plano Centers DONALD M. KOLL President Dots Koll Company. Inc. DONALD A. McINNIS l7cePresident, Northrop Corp. RICHARD NABERS Picsldcnr, Nahers Cadillac HANSPRAGER President, Gulliver's Restaurants F. G. SCOTT Owner, Barslde Alarlue Sales RENEE PELLETIER SHEPARD Investments JOHN R. YOUNG Business Arvestsnents and Management [ruine naflonal Bank Planning Commicc.ion Ncc'port Beech City Hall NevrpOrt Teach, Co. Gontlemen: 2121 Campus Drive Irvine, California 92664 (714) 833-3700 2850 E. Cor.e.t Hi him y Coro-." Del Ll^r, C_ . December 10, 1973 I oral the commercial building of 2850-54 Co .ct Highw-17, Corone del T7::r. is This"written to vigorou ply proter't .?ny ^.c-tion th^t could lead to increasing �`rhe already bur- donod traffic c~rried by Ernst Co -lot Highvny thru 6orona Del The once-pl^nned froevmy route ohould be use°d to c:'rry thr thru tr-,ffic, and ony effort spe•.r- her,ded by re-idents intent on "`hcepir-g things the way they-xellmu t be over -ridden in the interest-: of inevitable progross. Newport Beech is c, progroc-Ave community rnd the ajitcrec,ts of commercial heclth must not be over- lookod, clo let's not permit a ghbot buoir_etis dis- trict to develop in a beentiful area of our city. we need off-street p,rking and on cltern:,tc thru tr', i'fic route. Let' e put it together now h/ e R r' � i mitt / .nt 1913�,,. Oi T BEA6Nr � i"' erelyGn A. Hodson Member, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation OCEAN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INC. 1601 Water Street, Long Beach, California 90802 December 12, 1973 Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport, CA 92660 Gentlemen: Travel schedules lirevent my attending the planning meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. on December 13. As I understand the situation, you are to consider, among other things, the construction of a 6-lane highway along 5th Avenue in Corona Del Mar. As a resident of the Harbor View section of Corona Del Mar, I wish to register a strong protest against the construction of such an artery. I would do so in person, if I were able. The suggestion to use the 5th Avenue corridor for a freeway and express- way or some other heavy travel use, does not seem to go away. We have registered our opposition, as voters, at the polls a number of times. The community does not want this street used in this fashion. It would be helpful to the citizens and the township if you would leave 5th Avenue in its present condition and avoid the petitions, referendums, hearings, and general disruption that has occurred a number of times in the past. WHG/pm Very truly yours, William H. Glennon President IV Telephone (213)437-0481 Cable Address OCEANS-LGB Telex 656-474 13X7 i HARROtRVIEW HILLS 206 WESTFOURTH STREET HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 LUSK HOMES -:CORONA d,EL MAR (714) 541-5111 De6ember 6, 1973 Mayor McInnis and Members of the City Council City Hall Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: The Board of Directors of Harborview Hills Homeowner's Association wishes to take this opportunity to express their views concerning that portion of the city traffic study affecting Corona del Mar. We note that the traffic consultant recommended that the Pacific Coast Highway not be rerouted through that area commonly known as "the Fifth Avenue Corridor" because of a lack of public support. He has recommend- ed instead that traffic through Corona del Mar continue to be routed on the present Coast Highway with, if necessary, restrictions on parking thereon. It is our distinct impression that the traffic consultant cor- rectly assessed the depth of negative public reaction to the proposed rerouting. This impression is based upon the overwhelming support of our association members for a petition which opposes the rerouting of the Pacific Coast Highway through the Fifth Avenue Corridor. Furthermore, we are aware of such opposition from other homeowners' organizations and many other residents and business people of Corona del Mar. While it is true that the consultant indicated that rerouting Coast Highway through the Fifth Avenue Corridor would offer an alternative solution, he stated that this was a purely technical solution which would not be supported by the people of the community. Additionally, the traffic consultant's own study by BASICO (Phase I Report) indicated that the Fifth Avenue route was opposed by citizens throughout Newport Beach, The current energy crisis and its potential for long term changes in transportation requirements and methods leads us to the conclusion that a distinct measure of caution should be exercised in the planning and construction of new roadways so that public funds will not be expended needlessly for roadways and systems which may prove to be in excess of requirements. In view of the foregoing, and representing the overwhelming majority o0inion of our members, the Board of Directors hereby expresses its unanimous support for the traffic consultant's recommendations concern- ing the Corona del Mar portion of the city traffic study and we respect- fully recommend and request that you adopt his proposals for this area. We also strongly support the rerouting of the Corona del Mar Freeway via Bonita Canyon, as proposed by the consultant and respectfully recommend favorable city action on this key matter. FILE CUIPY1 DO NOT REMOVE Page two . We recognize that there are now and will continue to be considerable pressures exerted upon you collectively and as individuals to reroute the Pacific Coast Highway through the Fifth Avenue Corridor. We urge you to reject such pressures as being contrary to the needs and desires of the majority of residents of Corona del Mar. Finally, in the mutual interests of the business community and residents of Corona del Mar, we respectfully request that proposed restrictions to parking on the Pacific Coast Highway not be implemented unless such re- strictions.become absolutely essential. In that unlikely event, alternate parking must be made available first to prevent any disruption of commerce. Yours very truly, Qw. L Uwav� Richard L. Bowman President cc: Mr. William Agee and Members of the Planning Commission. th t A u l3. {? QPI�InINL RETUkNBD 70 660w M0690I/60 .Ytd1J91- AL91MAlrr ezm1nam N f*rl" OF ,DEC. /311973 Mr. William Agee, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Agee: til AT N/s ffk4ussr TmB December 6, 1973 Find enclosed a white paper on the Corona del Mar traffic patterns on Coast Highway from MacAuthur Boulevard East projected to 1990. This paper supports the key recommendations of the consultant for this area: 1. Relocate the Corona del Mar Freeway through Bonita Canyon. 2. Slightly modify Coast Highway instead of con- structing the Fifth Avenue Expressway. The data presented in the paper suggests that a ban on parking on the Coast Highway is unnecessary. Although the recommendation of the consultant in this area is clear and logical, I have presented some of the arguements against a Fifth Avenue Expressway in brief form against the possibility that certain powerful interests may attempt to revive the Fifth Avenue alternative. Sincerely, Calvin S. McLaughlin 544 Seaward Road Corona Del Mar Gerard Van Hoven 556 Seaward Road Corona del Max cc: City Council 6'7 3--`t 0 0 M FILE �apy DO NOT REMOVE Rf�emVFaa -DGe, 7) 1973 q :3v Ant . Gift aR N.B. White Paper on the Corona del Max Traffic Patterns on Coast Highway from MacAurthur Boulevard East Projected to 1990. Rerouted Corona del Mar Freeway The key to a reasonable -solution of the traffic problems in Corona del Mar and Newport Beach is the development of a major bypass route around Corona del Mar, so that through traffic and beach traffic other than Big and Little Corona does not use Corona del Mar as a traffic corridor. As the consultant has.identified (Phase III final report), this major bypass should consist of a relocated Corona del Mar freeway going through Bonita Canyon and finally through the Irvine Company's coastal sector, about one mile inland from the present Coast Highway. This bypass has the support of homeowner associations in Corona del Mar, the Chamber of Commerce, the Traffic Consultant and the citizens of Corona del Max. In short, this logical solution has the support of all the interests involved and should be adopted. Traffic Load on Coast Highway to 1990 Given this Bonita Canyon relocated Corona del Mar Freeway as the bypass around Corona del Mar and the rest on the traffic patterns proposed by the consultant for the areas adjacent to Corona del Mar, what sort of traffic demand can we reasonably expect for the Coast Highway in 1990. Making a number of assumptions which we will discuss later, the consultant in the Phase II report's plan D (which in this area most closely resembles the adopted plan) estimates the traffic through this area as between 37,000 ATD and 53,000 ATD (ATD, average daily trips). Based 6n a detailed examination of the patterns involved, an average estimate would be about 48,000 ATD. • • 2 For the past eight years the ADT on this segment of Coast Highway has hovered around 40,000 by actual count (data from the Public Works Director). Thus the projected demand -projected almost 20 years -is only about 8000 (20 percent of the current load) more than Coast Highway is carrying now. The range of estimates of load on the Coast Highway in 1990 in addition to that presently carried, varies from zero ADT to a high figure of 13,000 considering the demonstrated capacity of the Coast Highway as at least 40,000 ADT in its present condition. In no way can this 8000 ADT increase over what the Coast Highway is presently carrying be used to logically justify a Fifth Avenue bypass in addition to the Bonita Canyon -Corona del Mar Freeway bypass. Thus, the consultant recommends in the Phase III final report that $40,000 of minor modifications to Coast Highway will enable it to carry the projected 1990 load. This is a sensible,economical solution to the traffic problem through Corona del Mar and should be adopted in the general plan of Newport Beach. The consultant has listed as an undesirable alternative to &0,000 worth of Coast Highway modification, the construction of a six lane limited access Expressway through the old Coast Freeway right of way at a cost of 48,680,000. This is,of course, a technical solution to the 8000 ADT increase required of Coast Highway by 1990. This road would have an ADT capability of between 60,000 to 80,000 to handle 8000 cars difference between the. present load of Coast Highway and the 1990 projected load. It is illogical to build this sort of a road'to handle such a small number of cars. In fact,if we consider theJ8,680,000 as a debt to be paid off in 20 years, it would cost us as taxpayers over 25 cents a trip on less than two miles of road for each of the 8000 cars a day in excess of what Coast highway now carries. Never would so much road have been built for so few cars. Nevertheless, strong forces exist that want this Fifth Avenue Expressway 3 built. Therefore, it may be helpful to discuss the arguments against building it that were correctly recognized in the excellent final report of the Traffic Consultant. These arguments will also demonstrate that there is no need to ban parking on the Coast Highway if the Fifth Avenue Expressway is not built. The Strong Case Against Building the Fifth Avenue Expressway rests on Five Seperate Considerations: 1. There is no need for the road with the traffic increase projected to 1990. 2. The physical presence of the road would be a blight on our community. 3. Its very presence would encourage extra, unwanted and unneeded traffic in the coast area. It would be an attractive nuisance. 4. Development of the Fifth Avenue Bypass will hurt the businesses on Coast Highway. 5. The peopie of Corona del Mar, an informed group of citizens, are over- whelmingly opposed to the construction of a Fifth Avenue Expressway. 1. Projected traffic increase to 1990 (A)Projected development of the downcoast area to 1990- Summary: Based on downcoast development figures given by the Irvine Company, the consultant recommends against the use of a Fifth Avenue Expressway. Every identifiable factor indicates that these development figures over- estimates the traffic load in 1990 on the Coast Highway and substantiates that the Fifth Avenue Expressway is not needed and further suggests that parking bans on Coast Highway will not be required. The consultant has based his projected traffic increase to 1990, as it affects the problem of modification of Coast Highway and the possible 4 utilization of a Fifth Avenue bypass, on development figures for the down - coast and Fashion Island areas furnished by the Irvine Company. Almost all of the excess traffic predicted for 1990, that is traffic over that presently handled on Coast Highway, will come from the downcoast development. This is shown by the link analysis on the Fifth Avenue bypass(published in the Phase II report of the consultant, Page21). In this link analysis, almost 100 per cent of the traffic carried on the bypass origianted or terminated downcoast. A substantial portion of this traffic's destination appears to be the Fashion Island Shopping complex. Projections for the growth of this complex were furnished by the Irvine Company. These growth pro- jections are subject to a fifteen times multiplier; for each retail employee one projects fifteen trips a day, thus substantially increasing the traffic load. This information also was supplied by the Irvine Company. Thus, with respect to this traffic problem, the data on future development on both ends of the road is largely based on projections of growth by the Irvine Company in areas in which no prior experience is available. Note that even with all of these projections from the Irvine Company the traffic on Coast Highway in 1990 is only 8000 ADT over that currently carried. There is every reason to believe that both these figures furnished by the Irvine Company represent substantial overestimates. Fundamentally, they are based on the downcoast development of a population of 51,000 in 1990 with a mix of recreational and permanent residences that the Irvine Company' believes will be in its best interest. This 51,000 population figure which has not been scrutinized and accepted by the various public agencies involved with the development, will almost certainly be revised downward as time goes along. An example of this was reported November 11, 1973 in the Los Angeles Times. The State Coastline Conservation Commission has imposed population limits on the size of the sewer system that would E r� 5 serve the Irvine Coast. Under the Commission limits, the Irvine Ranch Water District which covers the coast would be restricted to serving only 36,000 people, through the sewage treatment outfall. A reduction of the population increase on the coast from 51,000 to 36,000 (a decrease of 30 per cent) would effectively lower the projected traffic increase on Coast Highway in 1990 to zero. There is a strong possibility that if the Cities of Irvine or Newport Beach are involved in planning the downcoast development, hillside homes, which would represent major portion of the 1990 population, would be re- stricted because of their uneconomical nature from the point of view of the tax burden on the rest of the population. One must conclude that , based on a variety of environmental and pollution considerations, it is highly unlikely that the present Irvine development plans for a population of 51,000 in the downcoast sector will be realized by 1990. (B) Mode of transportation projected to 1990 The second major development that was not considered quantitatively by the consultant possibly because the problem had not been dramatically presented at that time, relates to the energy crisis (PhaselII, page 26). Scientific opinion has known for a number of years that we are building to a real energy crisis in terms of exploitable petroleum reserves. We, quite simply, are running out of oil. And furthermore, we are running out of oil on the time scale.which will be important in 1990. The best opinion (Scientific American, 1971) indicates that oil production in the United States including Alaska will peak before 1980, Oil production world-wide will peak before 1990, if the projected increase in demand for energy is met by oil. In the most optimistic projections on oil avail- . 6 ability between now and 1990, it is anticipated that the price of oil will increase rapidly to several dollars a gallon. Indeed the price has increased 66 per cent over the past two years from a price of less than 30 cents per gallon to a price of about 50 cents per gallon (December 1973). Further, there is another factor involved in the energy crisis; over half of the known oil reserves and immediately available production facilities in the world are located in the Middle East. This area is reluctant to supply oil at very cheap prices to the rest of the world. It appears that we are coming to one of the transition points on our transportation mix much as happened when we changed over from horse and trains to automobiles. The falling automobile sales this year of full size cars confirm that we are in a transition period which must be taken ser- iously by planning agencies. Thus it is important to note that neither the consultant's plan, nor the Irvine Company's development plan on which the consultant's data were based for this downcoast development quantitatively takes into account this energy crisis which will surely restrict the use of automobiles. Both of their plans are based on the private auto as almost the sole means of transportation in 1990. This, of course, seriously over -estimates the traffic load for 1990 (see Phase III page 27 for the consultants warning on this point). Transportation will also lessen the traffic load on Pacific Coast Highway•(public transportation). The increase in public transportation will be spurred by high fuel costs, since these modes of transportation are fuel efficient compared to automobiles, and will also be the subject of government support. Already in its first year of full scale operation, the Orange County Transit District has removed the equivalent of 400 cars a day from Coast Highway. The Orange County Transit District plans to increase service indicate that in the next five years they will be removing thousands of cars a day from Coast Highway as people are diverted from 7 cars into buses. Thus, the anticipation on the basis of these considerations is that traffic on Coast Highway may very will drop substantially below present levels in terms of average daily trips (C) Impact of air pollution on automobile travel - Another factor which will reduce the rate of growth of automobile transportation in this area is the air pollution problem in the Los Angeles basin. The Environmental Protection Agency plans to severely ration gasoline and curtail parking to achieve clean air as mandated by law for 1975. of course, with the energy crisis the plan may be moot, but there is no doubt that we must as a region clean up the air pollution which at present represents a serious health problem. The consultant did not quantitatively include this pollution problem in his projection, but instead warned that agencies considering his report must estimate its seriousness and realize that concern with the environment in increasing (Phase III page 36). Additionally, we should recognize that the Environmental Pro- tection Agency is charged with controlling the development of new population centers such as the Irvine coast to ensure that the environment is not degraded by these developments. This new control element will surely modify and retard the growth of the downcoast area. In summary, every identificable factor affecting the rate of downcoast development tends to reduce the rate of population growth and traffic increase in the time frame to 1,990. They indicate that the consultant's projections, in themselves, are inadequate to support a Fifth Avenue Expressway, and substantially overestimate the rate of traffic increase on Coast Highway. (D) Projected Pattern of Traffic Flow to 1990. Traffic consultants freely admit that the pattern of flow as contrasted with the amount of traffic is the most difficult variable to predict. This is especially true in a situation such as the coast development, where there are no existing driving patterns to give one insight into 0 community driving habits. This arises because each motorist is free to take alternative routes and will do so if he finds.one route is slower or less pleasant than another. Our guess,as residents of the area, about the pattern of traffic flow is probably better than the consultants because we live here. Almost everyone who has through]y studied the alternate routes downcoast believes that the consultant has underestimated the amount of Coast Highway traffic that will be diverted to the Bonita Canyon Freeway. Traffic will divert because the major source of jobs, schools and shops are in that direction. Now there are no alternative routes to Coast Highway, but when the downcoast network is built, there will be a number of altern- ative routes available.to downcoast traffic. For example, 11,00 of the Coast Highway present 40,000 cars represent beach traffic, moving up and down the Coast Highway. A substantial proportion of this traffic would be diverted by the Bonita Canyon Freeway. Thus, we estimate the pattern of traffic flow in 1990 will have less cars using the Coast Highway than presently use it. 2. The Physical Presence of the Fifth -Avenue Bypass Would be a Blight on Our Community Corona del Mar is a fine place to live and visit.. We want to keep it as a traffic terminus not as a corridor. The construction of the Fifth Avenue Expressway, a six lane, limited access road, would effectively make Corona del Mar a corridor, channeling traffic through it that does not have Corona del Mar as its particular destination. The Fifth Avenue Expressway would be a blight on our community because it would encourage unneccesary traffic to come through the residential area of the city. This traffic would contribute noise pollution, air pollution, and the visual pollution of having this major barrier in our community. In Southern California the freeways effectively act as natural barriers between `J 0 9 communities. The Fifth Avenue expressway would delete one of the three roads crossing the freeway corridor, further isolating the upper part of town. The surest way to destroy the character of Corona del Mar is to put a freeway -type highway through it. The visual effect of the road would certainly be that of a freeway.• Many of our schoolchildren would have to cross this barrier on their way to schools. 3. The Presence of the Fifth Avenue Expressway Would Act as an Attractive Nuisance. The Fifth Avenue.Expressway would act as an attractive nuisance for the city of Corona del Mar in two senses. First of all, it would attract traffic because, it probably would be quicker to take the Fifth Avenue route than the Bonita Canyon bypass to some points in Newport Beach. Therefore, this expressway_ will tend to divert traffic off of the adequate Corona del Mar freeway extension down Bonita Canyon. A certain percentage of this traffic, especially in the summer, will find it convenient not to proceed to the beaches downcoast, but to the Corona del Mar beaches. This will overcrowd these beaches and make them less available for the residents and for the people who legitimately seek them out for their major destination because of their beauty. In a more profound sense, the Fifth Avenue Expressway is an attractive nuisance because it alone is capable of handling all the downcoast traffic projected to 1990, eliminating the need for the Bonita Canyon Bypass. Thus, if the Fifth Avenue route were to be approved, one would run the grave danger that the Corona del Mar freeway would be extended down MacArthur to meet the Fifth Avenue Expressway which would then be extended to the downcoast developments. The Fifth Avenue Expressway might be called an expressway, but under those conditions it would be functioning as a bonafide freeway carrying a tremendous amount of traffic through Corona del Mar. . - • • 10 4. Adverse Effects of a Fifth Avenue Expressway on the Corona del Mar Business District Construction of the Fifth Avenue Expressway will hurt the local merchants by shunting their share of the new downcoast business directly to Fashion Island. An examination of the growth rates downcoast indicates that there is no need to ban parking on the Coast Highway. Over 160 merchants have joined us in opposing the Fifth Avenue Expressway and opposing a modification of parking on the Coast Highway. The merchants are justifiably concerned about parking near their businesses but not at the price of walling off the Harbor View area from their shops or of diverting any new downcoast development off of Coast Highway. 5. The Citizens of Corona del Mar Oppose the Construction of a Fifth Avenue Expressway. The citizens of Corona del Mar and Newport Beach have spoken very clearly on the Fifth Avenue Expressway. They clearly want no expressway cutting their town in half. 1. Harbor Area Freeway Fighters gathered 20,000 signatures opposing the construction of a freeway in Newport Beach which would have gone in the Fifth Avenue corridor. 2. The Citizens Coordinating Committee gathered 10,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot to kilt the use of that overall corridor. 3. 85 per cent of the electorate voted to kill a "freeway agreement" which used the Fifth Avenue corridor specifically. �+. 85 per cent of the electorate voted for and the State ratified a Charter Amendment prohibiting the construction of a freeway or an expressway in our city without a vote of the people. PJ • 11 5. The Consultant's report says that the Fifth Avenue plan is an Expressway (Phase III, page 81). 6. As a part of this consultant's report, Behavior Science Corporation did an $18,000 study regarding public attitude. As a primary find- ing the study says "building a new major highway parallel to the existing Coast Highway is strongly opposed by knowledgeable individuals, by in-depth discussion groups and by a major survey"(Basico Study, page 35, Point 18). The use of Fifth Avenue received the lowest rating of acceptability (see Phase II, page 18). In conclusion, the people of Corona del Mar don't want the Fifth Avenue Expressway which would degrade rather than enhance their communities. There is no rational reason why it should be built because the road is unnecessary. We request that you accept the recommendation of the con- sultant for this area that the Fifth Avenue Expressway nctbe built and that the Corona del Mar Freeway be relocated through Bonita Canyon to bypass Corona del Mar. On the basis of our analysis, we request that the parking on Coast -Highway be continued in its present state. There is no compelling reason to change the parking patterns. .C•ORONA DEL MAR CITIZENS' PETITION COMMITTEE December 5, 1973 Mayor Donald McInnis and Members of the Newport Beach City Council Mr. William Agee, Chairman, Planning Commission and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission 3,300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Planning Commission Public Hearing, December 13th Gentlemen: _y � l The Corona del filar Citizens' Petition Committee hereby notifies the Newport Beach City Council and the Newport Beach Planning Commission' that they have collected 4765 signatures in opposition to the use of 5th Avenue in Corona del Mar for any highway oriented use and also in opposition to the construction of a freeway -type interchange at MacArtliur Boulevard and the Coast Highway. The petition supports the relocation of the Corona del Mar Freeway through Bonita Canyon as a bypass for through traffic. Of the 4765 signatures 190 are those of merchants who joined together with the residents of the area in'opposition to the use of 5th Avenue and in support of the use of Bonita Canyon for a bypass route. A copy of the petitions wi-11 be formally presented to the Planning Com- mission at their December 13th Public Hearing, and the original peti- tions will be presented at the forthcoming City Council Public Hearing. Will you please arrange to have this letter distributed to the members of the City Council and members of the Planning Commission prior to their respective Public Hearings. Respectfully submitted by The Petition Committee, Wallace Cald'erhead 712 Iris Avenue, CDM 0'Id Corona del Mar games Blakemore - 2509 Harbor View Drive, CDM Old Harbor View Hills Calvin McLaughlin 5 4 Seaward Drive, CDM C rona H'ghl nds l 4 , / v,4L Norman welnoerger 958 Sandcastle Drive New Harbor View Hills ,,Verai^d Van Hoven 556 Seaward Drive, COM Corona Highlands SN,Se,aL p4-gti u,rua. 13. L 7 � . con,nss,e.v mE�r„v6. OF pEG. i3�,973. o CO -PONA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, dam %/ Corona del Mar, California December 4, 1973 Mr. William Agee, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Gentlemen: The Board of he,Corona Highlands Association has asked me to convey our strong opinions concerning an acceptable traffic plan for Corona del Mar. We .have studied and discussed the various proposals put forward and wish to express our support for the following principles: i) The Corona del Mar freeway should be extended and re- routed along the Bonita -Coyote alignment as an external bypass around our city. It should smoothly attach to the relocated Pacific Coast Highway coming from the south and to San Joaquin Hills Road so that traffic is diverted from the center of town. ii) As a corollary to this bypass strategy, we believe that central Corona del Mar should be left alone. That is, we oppose the removal or restriction of parking on Coast Highway and we oppose the construction of the Fifth Avenue Expressway. Our board has nearly completely changed since our last letter on this subject to the Citizens Advisory Committee. Our belief in the principles listed above is, however, just as strong. We would like to preserve Corona del Mar as a residential community with a distinctive and convenient business district. Thank you for taking account of our beliefs; we would appreciate a reading of this letter at your meeting of 13 December. F.0X The Board of Directors, do RECEIVED Harold Ruther rd oommunity President Development C� lb DePt• r JZT HR: ew DEC 71973�' cc: City Council olTvor NEWProll OALIFEACH.h a `�' DO NOT REMOVE 13. n 41 07 1V.EWPORT-MESA Unified School District post office box 1368 • newport beach, california 92663 • (714) 645-0600 JOHN W. N I COLL, Superintendent Harbor View Parent Faculty Organization 900 Goldenrod Corona del Mar, California December 3, 1973 Chairman William Agee and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California Re: Planning Commission Hearing, December 13th Gentlemen: This letter is written on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Harbor View Elementary School Parent Faculty Organization of Corona del Mar. We feel it is our obligation to look out for the care and protection of present and future children who attond our school. It has come to our attention that 5th Avenue, which is along the southerly boarder of our school, is now being considered for the relocation of the Coast Highway. The new highway, we understand, would be a major highway with six lanes, divided with limited access which would be an expressway type of artery. The present and future children of Harbor View should not be subjected to air and noise pollution that would be generated by automobiles and the safty hazard of a major highway within a few hundred feet of their classrooms. We, therefore, would like to go on record as opposing any use of the 5th Avenue area for bighway purposes, and we do endorse the petition that has been signed by approximately 4000 residents of the Corona del Mar area who also oppose the use of 5th Avenue. Sincerely, PARENT FACULTY Susan Robison President cc: Please forward copies to City Council ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1601 Sixteenth Street Newport Beach, California 92660 (714)645-0600 INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES 1901 Newport Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92627 (714) 645.1100 F9 C1FV DO NOT REMOVE BUSINESS SERVICES 1857 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92627 (724) 645-1100 510OU1I L /O-8XIV/IUa 13 • l7 19mrale"Ov Meenme. JAMESM. PARSER �F JOIiQ. Jt;1973r ATTORNEY AT L&W W r P.O. ROE 400 w ,�� . �•,(j CORONA DEL WAR, OILWORNU 99090 City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California Attention: City Council Subject: Big Canyon P.C. Gentlemen: November 19, 1973 ... 4J.. `u IES SENT TO: (� mayor © Manager nAttorney Puhlle Work. DlmetQo ® 111nnnfng Director Other © Come"MoEl The undersigned does not agree with the majority of the Newport Beach Planning Commission in its decision of November 1, 1973 that the Irvine Company does not have a "vested right" in the Big Canyon Plahned Community Ordinance (See: Amendment No. 386). It is believed that 111 the Irvine Company does have such a vested right for the follTing reasons: 1. The "P.C." zone, although a districting zone like all others, is essentially different from other zoning types in that the owner, developer undertakes to prepare an entire set of development standards which apply throughout the area of the P.C. This effort is usually done in conjunction with the city planning department and much give-and-take goes into the P.C. When completed, the adopted P.C. is a negotiated ordinance, applying specifically and exclusively to one parcel of property, burdening only one owner or set of owners, but benefiting the entire city;. Thus, it is clear that the developer has as much a right in the P.C. ordinance as does the City and in fact, has a right that grows and expands as he works to implement the P.C. There must of logical necessity come a point in time when the developer's interest in the P.C. becomes a legally vested right which the City may not divest. This is true even though at various stages in the development, the P.C. is amended either at the instance of the City or the developer. It can be argued that a drastic amendment of the P.C. implemented at the behest of the developer could constitute a waiver of the developer's rights, but that is not the case here. 2. The Irvine Company has expended in excess of $3,000,000.00 in developing Big Canyon; 59% of the Dwelling Units planned for Big Canyon have been constructed and 86% of the area of Big Canyon has been developed in accordance with the P.C. Also, anyone driving through the Big Canyon development can see with his or her eyes, evidence of painstaking planning, implemented with care and great capital expenditure. This is. evidence of P- /Z Ira"' 0 LE DO SNOT REMOVE y 'r City of Newport Beach Page 2. Attn. City Council November 19, 1973 substantial reliance on the integrity of the P.C. and to change the P.C. in the light of these facts, is to say the least, less than equitable. 3. The P.C. is intended to "provide for the classifications and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advan- tage of the superior environment which can result from large scale community planning." (See: Chapter 20.51, paragraph 20.51 .020 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code.) Further, the P.C. is "intended to allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement..." (same reference) Thus, it is irrelevant in considering the question of vesting, to look merely at individual parcels within the area of a P.C. In considering this question, the only relevant facts are those that relate to the entire P.C. The fact therefore, that Areas 1,6, 10 and 14 of the Big Canyon P.C. remain wholly undeveloped at this time, is immaterial to the question of whether the entire P.C. is vested. This fact would be relevant if other areas of the P.C. were also undeveloped and an analysis of the entire area of the P.C. revealed that the developer's reliance on it was insubstantial. Again, that is not the case here. All of the above factors were considered by the Planning Commission and were rejected or considered as unpersuasive by the majority. I e.4. Parker 6P661ni. 101-IiNNING3.1-7 Commisalolu- maeriryG. tt rJ CORONA DEL MAR CITIZENS PETITION COMMITTEE November 12, 1973 6F Dse-131 1973. Honorable Mayor Donald A. McInnis DO 'NOT REMOVE and the Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Petition of 4531 Signatures in Opposition to Use of 5th Avenue in Corona del Mar and in Support of the Use of Bonita Canyon Gentlemen: Forwarded with this cover letter is an assemblage of over 175 petitions with a total of 4531 signatures opposing the use of any portion of'the now defunct Pacific Coast Freeway route along Fifth Avenue for any high- way -oriented use and in opposition to the construction of a freeway -type interchange between MacArthur Boulevard and the Coast Highway. The petition is in support of the relocation of the Corona del Mar Freeway through Bonita Canyon as a by-pass for through traffic and supports pro- visions for off-street parking prior to limitation of parking on the Coast Highway. These signatures were gathered during September, October and November of 1973. In the total of 4531 signatures, 816 signatures are from Newport Beach residents who reside in fringe areas of Corona del Mar such as••the Harbor View Homes area. Of the 4531 signatures, 56 signatures are those of Corona del Mar merchants. (See separate petition with 134'merchants signatures -- totaling 190 merchants who oppose use of 5th Avenue). We call to the attention of the City Council that the city's traffic con- sultant has described the proposed highway along 5th Avenue to be similar to a freeway or an expressway. At the recent city-wide election of March 9, 1971 over 85% of the voters of Newport Beach opposed the con- struction of a freeway or expressway through our city. Respectfully submitted by The Petition Committee, Wallace Calde ad 712 Iris Avenue, CDM Old Corona del Mar pmnes uiaKemore 2509 Harbor View Drive, CDM Old Harbor View Hills (4,_1 ,:,_ - alt �/, ,� Z L Calvin McLaughlin 544 Seaward Drive, CDM Corona jHighilands —A ryorman weinbergerj/ 958 Sandcastle Drive, CDM New Harbor View Hills CrBrai-d Van Hoven 556 Seaward Drive, CDM Corona Highlands L Wallace Colderhead 712 Iris Avenue, Corona del Mar November 12, 1973 Honorable Mayor Donald A. McInnis and the Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, -California Re: Petition of 154 Signatures of Corona del Mar Merchants in opposition to the use of 5th Avenue in Corona del Mar and in support of the use of Bonita Canyon Gentlemen: I am proud to say that I was one of the original "free holder" members who originally took part in the incorporation of the City of Newport Beach and also that I was a merchant on the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar for over 22 years and now retired. I am forwarding with this letter a petition with 234 signatures of both Corona del Mar merchants and residents. There are 134 signatures of merchants and 100 signatures of residents. This petition is identical to the Corona del Mar Citizens Petition Committee's that has 4,531 signatures in all respects except item number 3 of the petition. Item number 3 in this group of petitions differs only by supporting the continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Therefore, this petition that was signed by 134 merchants plus the larger petition that was signed by 56 merchants totals 190 merchants opposing the use of 5th Avenue and supports the use of Bonita Canyon as the by-pass route for through traffic. It should be pointed out that Mr. Richard Strickler and Ms. Cris hopper's petition also supports a by-pass but it does not support the use of 5th Avenue by name. Therefore, their petition also could be considered in support of Bonita Canyon and not necessarily 5th Avenue, and that point explains why some - merchants signed both petitions. Very truly yours, / Wallace Calderhead Wallace %lderhead 712 Iris Avenue, Corona del Mar November 12, 1973 Honorable Mayor Donald A. McInnis and the Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, -California SAEC/AG lolw ivnvlt Co�M/sslory IyleeriivQ O-C Joao— 13 1993. Re: Petition of 134 Signatures of Corona del Mar Merchants in opposition to the use of 5th Avenue in Corona del Mar and in support of the use of Bonita Canyon Gentlemen: I am proud to say that I was one of the original "free holder" members who originally took part in the incorporation of the City of Newport Beach and also that I was a merchant on the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar for over 22 years and now retired. I am forwarding with this letter a petition with 234 signatures of both Corona del Mar merchants and residents. There are 134 signatures of merchants and 100 signatures of residents. This petition is identical to the Corona del Mar Citizens Petition Committee's that has 4,531 signatures in all respects except item number 3'of the petition. Item number 3 in this group of petitions differs only by supporting the continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on the Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Therefore, this petition that was signed by 134 merchants plus the larger petition that was signed by 56 merchants totals 190 merchants opposing the use of 5th Avenue and supports the use of Bonita Canyon as the by-pass route for through traffic. It should be pointed out that Mr. Richard Strickler and Ms. Cris Hopper's petition also supports a by-pass but it does not support the use of 5th Avenue by name. Therefore, their petition also could be considered in support of Bonita Canyon and not necessarily 5th Avenue, and that point explains why some merchants signed both petitions. very truly yours, / !a► 0." Ge l0G•t. L.*. W Wallam Calder ead DO'NOT REMOVE 0 We oppose the use of any portion of the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway route along Fifth Avenue for any highway - oriented use. We also oppose the construction of a freeway -type interchange between MacArthur Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway. We support the completion, of the Corona dcl Mar Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway via Bonita Canyon as a bypass for through traffic. We support a continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and oppose any limitation on or removal of parking from Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. i L 3 • ���y�M'wvNJJJ�-1 1 i l I TO: Honorable Mayor Donald and the Members of the A. McInnis,. NewportBeach City Council/ 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California / 3 ; Gentlemen: WHEREAS the citizens of Newport Beach have previously voted in overwhelming numbers to oppose the construction of a multi- lane highway artery through the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire to protect and retain the unique character and quality of their community, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire the protection of the general health, safety, and environment, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar do hereby join in this petition. 2 3. TTAmr •j/ ��;.-f %�,*�n� ai5yc=�,� �G �r�mcz'.:-(� 7rf.� %",¢-L�ij3L�5 e 17, -� r•.-...off C ?2- � 2J 1o) NAME ADDRESS 1--Lt'i r— J 2Sy i NAME ADDRESS ckm • � Il n '\��N NI /Cl ''�L'y1.iC l%�^7 '�r� "� � ! �1%��f'L i/yI r f G./1^-•y 'i%"L i! iS-��v/�/ n ( � �n vL/•,r J nP_�f'� f0(.. > !r /v2(-.]Ll ! ` l� NAME . ADDRESS 7 IX ,- _ _ we a Lti,V v vv�J TO: Honorable Mayor Donald A. McInnis and the Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport- Boulevard, Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: WHEP.EAS the citizens of Newport Beach have previously voted in overwhelming numbers to oppose the construction of a multi- lane highway artery through the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire to protect and retain the unique character and quality of their community, and , WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire the protection of the general health, safety, and environment, THEREIFORE, we, the undersigned residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar do hereby join in this petition. 1. We oppose the use of any portion of the proposed Pacific -Coast Freeway route along Fifth Avenue for any highway - oriented use. We also oppose the construction of a freeway -type interchange between MacArthur Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway, 2.. We support the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway via Bonita Canyon as a bypass for through traffic, 3. We support a continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and oppose any limitation on or removal of parking from Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. NAME ADDRESS ���� �) !� _ _5 0 C� l-cti, t 1 D4 )b) Urn. �.�.��.` 47 ADDRESS ;�v '7 z 0 l M. r I NAME ADDRESS 4-�c+�'�..v� ` �- ��`' •�.Rs.�+ '33�0 'F': wr.s�.�.:�.+.'�.ve. } a \.} ADDREStS na / n. n Pu (IN]lln_. J SS I �i �nea n �'UTCA ems. i� i J '/i. TO: Honorable Mayor Donald A. McInnis and the Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport'Deach, California Gentlemen: WHEREAS the'citizens of Newport Beach have previously voted in 3 --3 overwhelming numbers to oppose the construction of a multi- lane highway artery through the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire to protect and retain the unique character and quality of their community, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire the protection of the general health, safety, and environment, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar do hereby join in this petition. 1. We oppose the use of any portion of the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway route along Fifth Avenue for any highway - oriented use. We also oppose the construction of a freeway -type interchange between MacArthur Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway. 2. We support the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway via Bonita Canyon as a bypass for through traffic. 3. We support a continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and oppose any limitation on or removal of parking from Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. ADDRESS 3,-2o/ oTii2� G (2D N NAME I 1 ""1; ADDRESS N ADDRESS �(v C� O' `Of4s % o a 1 �/. 6 LV/! ti ( -�,-./ /Y- m ( ,o 61--\ c pm CAM W TO: Honorable Mayor Donald A. McInnis and the Members of• the Newport Beach City Council / 3300'Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 6fl Gentlemen: WHEREAS the citizens of Newport Beach have previously voted in overwhelming numbers to oppose the construction of a multi- lane highway artery through the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire to protect and retain the unique character and quality of their community, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire the protection of the general health, safety, and environment, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar do -hereby join in this petition. 1. We oppose the use of any portion of the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway route along Fifth Avenue for any highway - oriented use. We also oppose the construction of a freeway -type interchange between MacArthur Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway. 2. We•support the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway via Bonita Canyon as a bypass for through traffic. 3. We support a continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and oppose any limitation on or removal of parking from Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. I ADDRESS e C j I ;-1 NAME ADDRESS comcata Uom Sat F LL& P. ;N-4 L Y� 4 Z It i i a Irv. pAC, o �C, 0 r C&� NAME kv� ADDRESS Al. TO: honorable Mayor Donald A. McInnis and the Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: WHEREAS the citizens of Newport Beach have previously voted in overwhelming numbers to oppose the construction of a multi- lane highway artery through the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire to protect and retain the unique character and quality of their community, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire the protection of the general health, safety, and environment, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar do hereby join in this petition. 1. We oppose the use of any portion of the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway route along Fifth Avenue for any highway - oriented use. We also oppose the construction of a freeway -type interchange between MacArthur Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway. 2. We support the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway via Bonita Canyon as a bypass for through traffic. 3. We support a continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and oppose any limitation on or removal of parking from Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. NAME ADDRESS /� S 107 4 x TO: Honorable Mayor Donald A. McInnis and the Members of the Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: WHEREAS the citizens of Newport Beach have previously voted in overwhelming numbers to oppose the construction of a multi- lane highway artery through the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS'the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire to protect and retain the unique character and quality of their community, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire the protection of the general health, safety, and environment, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar do hereby join in this petition. NAME 1. We oppose the use of any portion of the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway route along Fifth Avenue for any highway - oriented use. We also oppose the construction of a freeway -type interchange between MacArthur Boulevard -and the Pacific Coast Highway. 2. We support the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway via Bonita Canyon as a bypass for through traffic. 3. We support a continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and oppose any limitation on or removal of parking from Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. ADDRESS C /%L 1 0 v T0: Honorable Mayor Donald A. McInnis and the Members of the Newport Beach City Council !/ 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: WHEREAS the citizens of Newport Beach have previously voted in overwhelming numbers to oppose the construction of a multi- lane highway artery through the City of Newport Beach, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire to protect and retain the unique character and quality of their community, and WHEREAS the residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar desire the protection of the general health, safety, and environment, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned residents and businessmen of Greater Corona del Mar do hereby join in this petition. 1. We oppose the use of any portion of the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway route along Fifth Avenue for any highway - oriented use. [de also oppose the construction of a freeway -type interchange between MacArthur Boulevard and the Pacific Coast Highway. 2. We support the completion of the Corona del ?oar Freeway to the Pacific Coast Highway via Bonita Canyon as a bypass for through traffic. 3. We support a continuation of the present traffic flow and parking arrangements on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, and oppose any limitation on or removal of parking from Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. .0, L «=n NAME ADDRESS Ali J r, 0 0 f i NAME ADDRESS / �c� C� r &CL `` IV a • ,d ex FILE COPY �e -' Nov a5?973a. NEW CITY BF DO NOT REMOVE t'3 17 711 Orchid Ave. Corona del Mar Calif. 92625 Nov. 5, 1973 Mr. Wm. Agee Chairman, Newport Planning Com. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 Dear Mr. Agee, We are still very much Concerned about the efforts of those who seem determined to have Fifth Avenue used as a by-pass for Coast Highway. All of the signers on the petitions against such a six lane, Freeway -type Highway on Fifth Avenue show that the residents of the area, both above and below Coast Highway, are very much opposed to this use. With nonita Canyon an accepted prospect, and San Joaquin Hills Road, now six lanes to Mac Arthur Blvd. and laid out for six lanes right through Spy glass Hill, we feel that there is no necessity to impose the much resented Fifth Avenue route upon the residents. May we please count upon your help in this serious problem? Cordially, S Y s DO ,NOT REMOVE 3 RF Oey oMury� • ^/O� Oep{ ept z N� oR o 18�3e�. CAL F$FACf1i "�.� �LP✓in e. �� n2.su U TL �J / 00 NOT REMOVE L-7 432y GOLDENROD CORONA DEL MAR, CALIF. 92625 Nov. 4, 1973 MR. WILLIAM AGEE, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92660 THIS IS TO GO ON RECORD AS OPPOSED TO ANY HIGHWAY ALONG FIFTH AVENUE. PLEASE DON'T RUI-N OUR CITY WITH ANY FURTHER "PROGRESS" SUCH AS PROMONOTORY POINT, OR WITH CONTINUED BUILDING OF CONDOMINIUMS. THE CONGESTION AND LACK OF PARKING ALL OVER TOWN IS GETTING WORSE AND WORSE. WE WOULD HOPE THAT BY FAVORING THE BONITA CANYON BYPASS, YOU WOULD SHOW YOUR CONCERN. YOURS TRULY, 1^ MR. AND MRS. CHARLE8 MCKINN rN DO 1NOT REMOVE 13.1.7 Mr. Wiliam Agee; Ohairman Planning Commission of-Ni B. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 02660 Nov. 3, 1993� -- bear Mr. Agee and Members of -the Planning Commission - No road along Fifth Avenuw, pleaset We have a sizable number of signatures,on,a petition to the Mayor of Newport Beach (approximately 4000)-to that effect.- Cut back the building of the several hundred occupant apartments•, large condominiums tracts and if the area that is now unzoned is to be developed make it R-1. Sincerely, Mrs. Mary A. Barrett 521+ Orchid Ave. CdM 92625 Ca. CD o tr'�'®py o DO 'NOT REMOVE �pJ vRQG�v q may'' l2 a w r N L r • NOVEMBER 2, 1973 MR. WILLIAM AGEE, CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE N. B. PLANNING C014MISSION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 DEAR SIRS: A WORD FROM YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS THAT WE DO NOT WANT A CORRIDOR OR HIGHWAY OF ANY SORT ALONG FIFTH AVENUE IN CDM. AND, NO MORE LARGE HOUSING AREAS ESPECIALLY NOT THE MULTIPLE APARTMENTS SUCH AS PARK NEWPORT, PROMONOTORY POINT, AND THOSE AROUND RICHARD'S MARKET. WE ARE COUNTING ON YOUR SUPPORT. SINCERELY, dA,7,--JmbtA,-.) ((-�// r°or a,A ,( AO- C&. '126ac', DO NOT REMOVE P� /9 7,3 54- 00) X" � -/ e 40-e�� 65� r PULE: COPY DO 'NOT REMOVE October 31, 1973 Mr. William Agee, Chairman NNI 1:% Members of the Planning Commission 13•!7 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 7�((q YrV�+lir Dear Sirs: TFOLLa We do object to a corridor alongO(?1bR AgMrAue. The truth is, The Irvine Company has pushed this for years and are still doing so, and we are FED UP. Mr. Watson is right, there is very, strong opposition. That luat petition with its 4000 signatures should tell you plenty. It gets very tiring to constantly have to watch the big conglomerate stepping on the rights of this lovely community of Corona Del Mar and other parts of Newport Beach for that matter. Your commission is in a position to helps us and we are asking for that help right now. Explore and really explore other ideas, this one is the only one that is PUSKED AND �PUSKED AND PUSHED ! ! 4Z �a Coo pV DO NOT RE OVE .mac • ' ��� / Z%� v rAp� r Mr. William Agee, Chairman Mr. Joseph Rosener, Jr. Mr. Donald Beckley Mr. James Parker Mrs. Jacqueline Heather Mr. William Hazewinkel Mr. Hall Seely Newport Beach Planning Commission Ladies and Gentlemen: Corona Del Mar October 31, 1973 c P�<C Years ago we chose to live in this beautiful little town, paid our taxes, and settled back to enjoy the wonderful environment, therefore, we do not want the FIFTH AVENUE TRAFFICWAY with its Air Pollution, noise pollution, and more people arriving with such easy ascessability to this area. The Irvine Ranch is large enough for them to put their big old route for their Fashion Island Shoppers further inland! This issue keeps reoccuring again, and again although our City Officials and the Irvine Company know the Citizens do not want this road. They keep hoping that the people are sleeping and might just let them get away with it. 4000 signatures on petitions is a goodly portion of the total pop- ulation, don't you think? We do get a little weary of the constant harrassment from our Ranch neighbor. The Corona Del Mar Citizens have definitely let you know how they feel,now, you do your part. Respectfully, DO SNOT RCMOVE s REOgtVFO -s pommy �t • �: ,� j7 Oevpe� Octoleer 30, 1973 £� NAP AL a5AGNc , Mr. William Agee, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: !7 We are not interested in furnishing a corridor for the Irvine Company's customers to Fashion Island at the detriment of our Community! Having notified the officials of this City by a petition of 4000 signatures (mostly resident/owners) it amazes us that the local papers are full of that very possibility. Mr. Watson is correct, there is strong opposition] and it is just as strong as when we gave you the mandate in that City Election against the Freeway. Naturally, we thought that would take care of the matter forever and'was surprised to see the big fight looming again. Of course the big GIANT that surrounds our town has pushed for nothing else all these years and it is time to show them we are not going to be shoved into the sea by his housing tracts, apartments, shopping centers, money -money -money, and roads. The point is, we do not now or ever want a thorough -fare along our Fifth Avenue. It is degradation of our City and we PROTEST!!! Sincerely, DO NOT REMOVE ),/L . O 4S' ,�\Q� G�oQc��• 11 ZELMA O'NEAL, H. C. A. 421 GOLDENROD AVENUE • CORONA262p TELEPHONE 6 5-1544 31�, Corona Del Mar October 30, 1973 l3 dZ To: Mr. William Agee, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission We had an election a year or so ago rescidding a Fifth Avenue Agreement between the City and the State Xighway Department -- remember? Well, this new name is opposed just as strongly and Mr. Watson is aware of this, so it was printed in the Daily Pilot last Friday (October 26, right?). There has or will be a petition presented to the Mayor with 4000 signatures of CDM citizens objecting. Mostly Resident/Owners too. Xavinr carried some of the petitions, we know the people are weary of the same old battle, resent the Irvine Company pushing for this road over our dissent,& We do not want a 5th Avenue Route of any kind, p� now or in thee future. r DO 'HOT REMOVE Deb pePC 1g13 y F J M pY� Og�AC1a� % �%%j�/�"(°/J//V Qp P`,F, • October 30, 19'7 FOLE 0 // MR. WILLIAM AGEE, CHAIRMAN DO'NOT REMOVE MEMBERS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 GENTLEMEN: A REMINDER --WE HAD A LANDSLIDE VOTE AGAINST A FIFTH AVENUE FREEWAY AND EVEN THOUGH IT IS CALLED ANOTHER NAME, IT IS THE SAME ROAD THAT THE IRVINE COMPANY HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR YEARS. THAT COMPANY BROUGHT THE POPULATION IN HERE NOW LET THEM PUT THEIR CORRIDOR SOMEWHERE ELSE. ON OUR PETITION WE SUPPORTED THE BONITA CANYON BYPASS FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC AND(BY MR. WATSON'S ADMISSION THIS WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE TRAFFIC ALONG PACIFIC COAST HWY.) OBJECTED TO ANY CHANGE ALONG FIFTH AVENUE, OR PACIFIC COAST HWY. LET THAT COMPANY EXTEND SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD OR BUILD ONE THROUGH THEIR TRACT OF HOMES AND WE DON'T 14BAN HARBOR VIEW HHIILL,(S/ WHICH HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 195/9� FOR • October 29, 1973�-1 Mr. William Agee, Chairman Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Sirs: Sending my objections to any thought of Fifth Avenue as a trafficway of any kind. By this time, you have to be aware, the people in this town do not want a road along Fifth Avenue in Corona del Mar#! We've told you so in petitions, an election and I am sure, many letters. We have known it was our friendly big landowner "TYE IRVINE COMPANY" all the time. Read where Mr. Watson is pushing over the strong opposition for the road leading to Fashion Island. Please remember, we were here before the Shopping Center and all of this housing that has been mushrooming around and around. Why ruin this lovely place? Ake the $'s winning again? I am a Resident/Owner of many years and have never been against progress but such an onslaught is not to be tolerated. Limit the big units, and large developments and I don't mean the homeowner with his duplex or an R-2 lot. One Way streets should be considered and perhaps parking on one side on a few. I believe the congestion could be relieved in this way and let Bonita Canyon be the By -Pass for through traffic. P j Sincerely, � R s Com £D D�ve� Anent a �j Dept. �/ / 2 T S 019I31t. 0�� � �9� �z October 29, 1973 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor Donald A. McInnis oto ' Members of the Newport Beach City Council CNESSENT TO: 3300 Newport Boulevard ouncumoo Newport Beach, California 92660 C,o§or i CItY CIcr0 n ✓�- Dear Sirs: tnor I object to a road along Fifth Avenue in Corona M del :oar. It has to be evident to you --the citizen in this town do NOT ever want our community divide } there.' We voiced our opinion in the special elec- tion and regardless of name we still feel the same. Irvine can use another spot for their trafficway to FASiION ISLAND. As stated in the recent-petitio that you have or will receive, we favor Bonita j Canyon it is such a shame that a big Corporatio 1 and land Developer can harass this lovely area. !� with such regularity. We can lighten our traffic congestion by not allowing huge complexes --it isn't the R-2 duplexes adding to the growth, it is the 5, 10, 20, 100,etc units such as Promontory Point (a monstrosity), the Balboa Bay Club Apartments, the ugly development along San Joaquin Stills Road, etc. We do not need more shopping centers, hotels, motels and the like. There has to be an end and now is the time. Sincerely, t C�;Z" C,,O� � c� r J 1 DO SNOT REMOVE 0j OG \C P P t G� 13.1 tAJ014 1 raged �e.�e an-� �us-Cn . hove �aU2 d 'I-�e o ieapi o (rr )IOUse9 a ra b e acti �D `AJO LA) d � j Q CF'1 roae �urban l�-c u�� eorn er-es - rose �Ju,cf Aws , Cta _CIO � loosg a Kj even -�cla7z ons f�1 CDP p(ecs-c erg i-�e Ou�Ct' 9-oq y,z � D� w' • • City of Newport Beac 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 714/673.2110 October 29, 1973 Mr. Raymond L. Watson, President The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Watson: I was very pleased to receive your letter of October 15, 1973, supporting studies for rerouting the Corona del Mar Freeway down coast via Bonita Canyon. The desirability of this route, in- cluded initially in the General Policy Plan of Newport Beach, has since been recommended in all the alternatives studied by the City's traffic consultants. lie have indications that ad- ditional support to this study may be obtained from the cities of Laguna Beach and Irvine, as well as the County of Orange. The cooperation of the Irvine Company is sincerely appreciated by the City of Newport Beach. As to the additional points in your letter regarding the 5th Avenue bypass and the adopted route between Bonita Canyon and the Pacific Coast Highway, we will be glad to discuss these elements after the completion of our Traffic Study and the pub- lic hearings. I am appreciative of your offer to assist the cooperative efforts to solve our critical tra feel Newport Beach can benefit greatly by thi start implementing the recommendations of our ants, and I will call you personally in this future. Very truly yours, 2 � 4 DONALD A. McINNIS Mayor DAMc:mm city in further ffic problems. I s cooperation as are traffic consult - regard in the near 13.i8 DO 'NOT REMOVE IJ THE IFMNE MMPAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 pgnnond L Wateon President October 15, 1973 STUDY SESSION i� ITEM NO. 4(b)l W. Donald A. McInnis, Mayor City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. McInnis: You have asked the position of The Irvine Company relative to the possibility of rerouting the Corona del Mar Freeway downcoast via Bonita Canyon. I would like to make the following points. First, we understand that the City's own traffic studies indicate that such a bypass would help alleviate existing and future traffic problems in the community, especially in the Corona del Mar area. Independent preliminary studies made for this corporation tend to support the findings of the City's consultant. Accordingly, further studies of the feasibility of the bypass appear to be in order and I would encourage such studies. Of course, it is important that all interested and affected public agencies participate in such studies. Second, according to all studies we have seen, including those made for the City, it appears that even if the Corona del Mar Freeway rerouting concept is accomplished, and regardless of the level of development which may occur along the Irvine coast, there is still a need in the future for an arterial highway bypass along the Fifth Avenue corridor. The need for the Fifth Avenue bypass exists despite the freeway rerouting because of the preponderance of traffic with origins and destinations within the City of Newport Beach. I realize there is strong opposition to this idea. However, this opposition does not alter the facts identified by the studies. Resolving this conflict will not be easy, and I join others in the hope that you will make your decision objectively and in the long range interests of the City's need for realistic solutions to its traffic problems. 0 0 City of Newport Beach Page 2 October 15, 1973 Finally, even though the Corona del Mar Freeway may ultimately bypass the community, that portion of it along the adopted route between Bonita Canyon and the Pacific Coast Highway may still be essential and should be studied. I£ future decisions cause that freeway link not to be built and that right-of-way not to be used, then the Company would have to seek relief from the State and/or the City, as The Irvine Company in good faith developed communities reserving that right-of-way in accordance with a freeway agreement between the State and City of Newport Beach. If The Irvine Company can assist the City in further cooperative efforts to solve its critical traffic problems please feel free to call on us at any time. Sincerely, Raymond L. Watson 15-1-7 GAF r � j�l October 28, 1973 � G Mr. William Agee, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission (Newport Beach) 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92660 Gentlemen: Contrary to some of the local newspapers around here, this community is not divided over this Fifth Avenue issue. We have carried petitions before the special election (remember, a six to one landslide against the freeway) and the recent petition which has been or will be presented to the Mayor with approximately 4000 signatures, fighting this same issue except the use of another name! We found each and everyone opposed and incredulous that it was necessary to repeat and repeat. We DO NOT WANT ANY TYPE OF ROADWAY THERE (FIFTH AVENUE -CORONA DEL MAR) NOW OR LATER! It seems Ampossible for the big land developers, and large corpo- rations to be able to push our small community around anyway they want and grossly unfair! The Daily Pilot reported contents of a letter from Mr. Watson, President of the BIG Irvine Co. to the Mayor of Newport Beach (Friday, October 26,1973) admitting the Bonita Canyon By-pass would alleviate present and future traffic congestion on the Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and then made a strong pitch for a road to be built on the former Pacific Coast right-of-way along FIFTH AVENUE, between CDM and Harbor View Stills. He also admitted he realized there was strong opposition. He can say that again!!! Let the Irvine Company build their road to FASHION ISLAND further inland and leave us alone. Plus we need not limit duplexes on all ready zoned R-2 lots --they add up to very small amounts of population growth --it is Irvine's fig complexes, numerous large apartment buildings, condominiums, hotels, motels, and large shopping centers that are making the congestion! We will support one-way streets in CDM, parking on one side only where necessary such as our own street Goldenrod, and higher parking fees. Enclosed are 2 articles taken from the Ensign, Thursday Oct. 18, X00 1973 and we agree fully with Gerald Van Hoven and Norman Weinberger. Notations are on the other. Have also enclosed a copy of a letter written earlier by a neighbor Mrs. Gertuude Broxon to the Coastal Zone Conservation Commission at her request and we wrote a similar one sending our copy to the City Council. I hope we can count on your supportX/. Thank you. Sincerely, DO NOT REMOVE x 0 4 p .a :r. -t onau ?. :_'rlt;ht, Chi irnan uoj?ct;..l �o,,le Conservation Co Aucion b6t) nLt C,O-.:^n boulcvctc:., uito 3207 7.on;, L[:,%of, %;.Ili2orrira *9OW2 er,r . ir; 4otober 2a, 1';i7 ixxae 3 r.: , ozanitoly o,:;_Iocod to the uz o 09 rieth Avenue iai V r::,a•,. c,ol .lrr for aay ldi,,hwv.7 uGO wAC&C-001VOr, TO-, arCi1MG 02 nr � -e, j x e tiaiu : cp jjc c:i i ,in your o roa of jur it dictio:a, i Zolt It CC^S.S_ iy' til morn ;sou Lrui YOUr CO1_'t1IttC0 to that 09100t. Thcr ., yor of +dL_t: `oi"t J.:orcL rids tLo City Ccurlcil will coon be r� r.cate,; -,,It% y:etitionc ciCnca by the oiti::ono �a�.roxirarete?y �C?.y'J) in th1f; cootion (Corona dol : or) chowin:; their ohs.;osition to iACshvrgy or thorou'�hCore alone iftl2 "venue tco. 1:0 all tool it vIll be dotr3r.entv1 to mar }acrYsi :i. ivj tsars cO:n .unity, rui:a a lovely c iall to;m, bo 4n h�.v.- 'd t, t..'a o .iisrOn atte.,dinL; ' ZWL^^f)r Viow � 2V3Cntary >, :ool, t w:e a-w, y" t;;.t3 'Louth tenter a::u i!a l � -ark et. ie a atirol� uancceL-L, . .Ort tIlo + orate. %;VXQ1on i;,t_r c for t� Urih wa.Cis. tac d <x ttlo-:,il%ulatiorl roctL, L cw,port no a::oro buil&iu„ of otfacr thcn caa7j1LR.eo ,:.r•econtly zo4cts 1'.-29 40 -'Ore t"o,c o :ir.iu u or + *•toly or Otolrj in the UOUGt2l aroa of .aow- ort wour Go _, ,9.:,c ion we a. cor:rxcl by a vote c.^`. tiio � ooa 10 in Cz:Yiiord is VA ro ;.rr c 1,0 cm count an ;tour uay);,ort in this :aottor. �-iC Gr GCt$u1.ly, C ortrade L-roxon 7Wr Golc cnrod 1:'ronuo Corona del Jor, Orli:iornia 92615 cc. :: e.r ort ,arracia city Council a,uu ort z'clacIz T.1t+.anina 'eca: art. -mat 0�nutCHARM ENSIGN twvm w Y — PAGE 2 RO.. „' - S 5T" pvENUE• ..r_k2. t� It ,e al, as pest °` `..- was P r- xange general plansngs00 tatf• p The plan alsoysets ell, 1 p * l OIy.COST housing the CCC by Jog t 0 city H usingA Iotathor- Orang Palling Ity* OPEN HOUSINGbY nning foF a °TBHBions nand national racial, estate..02 origin consideraotloreal mre - F•p,, tat and ITS osalesn in oAurnthe cltp by C dwelling oats control asking for strict city meat. re estate develop ov5tate law rees that housing elemincluded in the city s enera' p B� tan. THURSDAY, OCT. 18, 1973 l DDIVI 5T E�,,,°' ^ 13YPASS NEEDED? lCON' the north and east of Corona del Mar as a bypass via Bonita- Coyote Canyons, to meet the' Coast Highway between Corona By Gerald Van Hoven del Mar and Laguna Beach. and Norman Weinberger A few have argued that both iof the Committee for the Pre- a bypass and a route through sg"I I on of Corona del Mar. town are needed, attempting `7y7� f * * to justify this position qy using Committee fur the Pre ---a s& of ridiculously exagger- tKat(On of Corona del Mar ated traffic projections for a016ruied to Protest some un- 1990. The source of the traffic ettmoe- recommendations of consultant's recommendation ,the Newport Beach traffic con- for an expanded CoastHighway, Isultant. The committee is cir- or a new expressway through fcuhiting a petition, which now the forbidden freeway corridor !has nearly 4,000 signatures, near 5th Avenue, is a set of ;directed to the City Council. exaggerated traffic projections It states two things: for the year 1990. These fig- 1) That the answer to our ores were wrapped up last year traffic problems is the con- before the advent of the Coastal struction of a bypass, between Commission (Proposition 20), 'MacArthur Boulevard andSouth the LA -area recommendations Coast Highway, on the Bonita- of the Environmental Protec- Coyote Canyon Route north and tion Agency, the density - east of town; and reduction proposals ofthe New- 2) We wish no construction of Port Beach general plan, the new expressways through Cor- Preliminary blossominingof the ona del Mar, or significant Orange County Transit District, modifications of the existing and even the gasoline shortage. Coast Highway. These new influences and an In effect, we are enduring a analysis of the traffic consult - replay of the pave -now, pay- ant's figures indicate thatthere later Plans that we fought and is need for only The Bonita/Coyote bypass one major defeated the initia- route in the f Corona route would traverse min - tie b the of a veral ears del Mar. Which s otuld ou su Y Y sup - habited lands Stith its, eonstruc- ago. ago, Port, one through town, or one It is through traffi6' in CDM would be greatly redueed, as our good fortune that through Bonita/Coyote Can- Corona del Mar is ahattractive Yons. The routes -shown by the consultant'S_tig- proposed place to live and visit. Thus, through our city, whether along ores. The Bonita/Coyot6bypass we always have and always an upgraded Coast Highway or will have traffic. We can min- along the 5th Avenue freeway . is; therefore, an essential ele- ment in the ,preservation of imize that traffic, however, by corridor, would ensure for all insisting that we be treated by time that Corona del Mar would Corona del Mar. ' The question Is often raised the road builders as a desti- serve as a pipeline for through nation. We . whether the Bonita/Coyote by - pass will be built. A four to six should, at all times, traffic, needlessly bringing 'fight any plan such as the Coast noise and air pollution. The lane expressway on this route Freeway, which turns our town new route along 5th Avenue, has been on the accepted Orange into a coastline conduit. which is not a bypass since it In order to improve County roadphmfor manyyears and could be constructed on the the en- goes right through the. center vironment In Corona del Mar, of town, would destroy the basis of local decisions. ;some relief must be provided community tennis courts and 'for through traffic. There are ball fields, and the Youth Cen- As stated at the beginning of ,this article, the committee be - 'lieves three possible solutions: 1) wf- ter. It would create a hazard that the citizens and dening and improvement of Pa- to the health and educationogthe businessmen of Corona delMar cific Coast Highway, and children attending Harbor View should hold fast. Time is on our side and it's our town. restriction of parking; 2) con- elementary school. The 5th struction The true choice we face is be- of a freeway -type Avenue corridor route would highway (six lanes, divided, serve as a barrier within Cor- tween the MacArthur/Coast- limited access) in the 5th ona del Mar, dividing it forever Avenue corridor the in half. Highway (or, 5th Avenue) route !add the Bonita/Coyote route. of defeat- Many of us moved to ed and deleted Pacific Coast Corona del Mar to get away Do wewant a"freeway?'through Freeway; this Would meet the from freeways and autopollu- Mown or a bypass around town? Corona del Mar Freeway, which tion. Either of these corridor I`Ve believe that the choice is would town }theded clear. We must defeat the Arthur to PCHalong from its that hope for all time. in short itya which'pay-later"mental - ou d degr devour present terminus at Bonita/ the construction or upgrading Canyon; and 3) re-routing the of these highways through town community. Let your voices Corona del Mar Freeway to would forever degradethecom- be heard! Preserve Corona del Marl -----.._y munity of Corona del Mar.- _ - -- ,/ % �� � / t �' ,► , / � �� �/ � / /' � I�� , 1, , � � ,; / I � 'stolt�- . Y-MRS. CHARLES M. HILL 2907 HARBOR VIEW DRIVE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIrORNIA 92625 DO NOT REMOVE ' DATE, ..... 0.......................... -0epc"h' t-'l Q MAYOR 0 COUNCIL Q MANAGER Q ATTORNEY Q BUILDING CITY CLERK Q FINANCE 0 FIRE Q GEN. SER HARBOR TIMELAN FOMMACTION 13 FILE 2'.�' INFO, NF RM ATI EVIEW & CO RETU ..... �....... Ny 1 REMARKS:----•- -{-l LIBRARY MARINA PARK MARINE SAFETY PARKS & REC. ��PER,S��O��NN EL FIIJffYIYI NG .(..-4-.'.. l.:t..1.we.....t..................................................... .......... ...................................................... FROM:... .. .. .......................... 13. t'7 1673 CRY OF • 3 tv�tinoRr aC ifr. Joseph Devline Director of PubiicP forks Newport Beach City Hall Dear Mr. Devlin: :;a are writing la rssp oAsb to a req host :VOA tile OftlCe Of the Harbor Viev iHL s Xomoowaord Aasociation. We �rlah 4 siato however, that ve cc>sa..I er aarselVeu kpaptivq" m eru off' this apsoeiftion for 7;te bad no choice as riamberihIzo is z.mda.tory Ytith puzahase Of h ' a first Qf all `ITO disagreo ' th they t5sotiatl000 stand 7:e- g rdlAg th* ;4th Street corridor. 140 vaderstand tbat thOre are alvo other In -embers �Vaptiva) csf the asa001atIOA that alse d? sagr�a th the assoclution s staxad. We a,-m defint a l D ; is favor bf ttaa 5tt�' treat co: ricer fax co estion $A the saa,E� CO2u3td ' u t area s boyoud rcasonablo tt3 .4�L' 210� ti O' � (1t71Stri �3 %i�2a0 t�L £iS � lleviate this xzY"fie +n astio I s ro ;you aro pie 3 a are that t 3 aroma is e exieaYii a po iulat apt e �p cr; i sxa t t oanrant be sl+�uerl do,arc or oat l3�ed date ,a 3ac7� of traffic corrAdora In gather word,01 thg fe110 ve these traff a 0orridors, we could reo ry e the quest 110*0Vt nOO. ch 4eAZh0Z0 resort at osphere Is str3etly "pine dreams". Wa also are strongly in favor of the coAtiaauat on Ot the Carona. deb. Fear Freeway thru to pgc31fic, Coast Highway ,for .ve agree the congestion in this 'area is building and as more reW 'ra=es, aptl3.3, v4d cohdominiund are camplated, 'trafho congestion vill Grit pro9r5ssi',,f0347 '1=00. We also, ahoula like to VoIo'p our l'zvaring 4'antimuance -and ova'a broadening co=ercial service at Orange County a rport# The noise and pollution factors cortalnly are In. reasonablo bounds -4th the steps that the airlines. have talkoh, our local alXport certainly serves to iceap additional oars and ter pollution off the frevvaya by oXforing local servtcee IIo fe0i it area voice '4t;c pretend OrAn is about tiros that the 0silent" * tiz cf this their opiaionz rather than the vocal associations to speak for all* Ic�j DO NOT REMOVE iZoKr� ; G% CA � �) Ict �.v � ,jg,i�,� y� Al ` ,lL�✓r� q a�� / U DO'NOT REMOVE /IFr 3 s er-6 i 0 a�1 ?,Ott V-- r� r3, Ul CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH --,"- MEMORANDUM: From Rodney L, Gunn, Community Development Dept. To ..... ".r...... A1... Ar..io.r................................. .... Fc�b..!'.uR_ry..11a........, 19.7�.. Alan M. Voorhees and Assoc.$ Inc. 5252 Balboa Avenue San Diago, California 92117 We are enclosing one copy each of the following for your information and file: 1. Orange County Transit District letter dated January i8, 1973 to Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach; Z. Resolution Ho. 73-01 of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Transit District dated January 4. 1973; 3, Page 9 of Minutes of Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 1# 1973. Awy roc awry OX RLG/ddb BY Rod • Gunn Encls. (3) DONOT REMOVE N�7P