HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRCULATION ELEMENT OF NB GENERAL PLAN MARCH 1974111111111 lill III III 1lill 1111111
*NEW FILE*
CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF
NB GENERAL PLAN MARCH
1974
I
Circulation Element
of the
Newport Beach General Plan
Adopted and Recommended for Approval by the
Planning Commission on January 10,1974
Adopted by the City Council on March 11,1974
Amended by.
General Plan Amendment No. 4, Resolution No. 8314;
adopted by the City Council on July 22,1974.
General Plan Amendment No. 5, Resolution No. 8315;
adopted by the City Council on July 22,1974.
General Plan Amendment No. 9, Resolution No. 8398;
adopted by the City Council on December 9,1974.
General PlanAmendment No. 23 (portion), Resolution No. 8448;
adopted by the City Council on March 10,1975.
General Plan Amendment No. 23 (portion), Resolution No. 8458;
adopted by the City Council on March 24,1975.
[the text includes amendments through GPA 86-2(A)]
RESOLUTION NO. 8206
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE NEWP.ORT 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
I! 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 sai.d 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 llth day of March 1974.
CERTIN AS A TRUE AND RRECT COPY
ATTEST:
C Y CLLU CUP VIE CHY OF Np�SEACH
City Clerk DAYE�......... li.�,R. L,61974
I`1
I
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Introduction ----------------------------------------------------- Page 1
Purpose and Scope ------------------------------------------------ Page 2
Circulation Element - Proposals ---------------------- ---------Page 3
Basic Concept -------------------------------------------------- Page 3
Master Plan of Streets and Highways ---------------------------- Page 3
Specific Proposals ----------------------------------------------- Page 4
Corona del Mar Freeway - Bonita/Coyote Canyon
Alignment------------------------------------------------------ Page 4
Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and
Newport Boulevard ----------- =---------------------------------- Page 4
Interchange at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway ------------- Page 5
Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Blvd ----------------- Page 5
Coast Highway from Upper Bay Bridge to Dover Drive ------------- Page 5
Coast Highway between Jamboree Road and the
Upper Bay Bridge ---------------------------------------------- Page 5
Coast Highway from MacArthur to Jamboree Road ------------------ Page 5
Coast Highway from MacArthur thru Corona del Mar --------------- Page 5
Superior Avenue ------------------------------------------------ Page 6
15th Street from Superior Avenue Westerly ---------------------- Page 6
Dover Drive from Westcliff to Coast Highway -------------------- Page 6
Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to
Corona del Mar Freeway ----------------------------------------- Page 6
MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to
San Joaquin Hills Road ----------------------------------------- Page 6
MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills
Road to State Route 73----------------------------------------- Page 7
San Joaquin Hills Road from "Old" MacArthur to
Spy Class Hills Road ------------------------------------------- Page 7
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Ford Road from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Blvd -------------- Page 8
University Drive from Tustin Avenue to
Corona del Mar Freeway -------------------------------------- Page 8
Avocado Avenue from Coast Highway to
San Joaquin Hills Road -------------------------------------- Page 8
San Miguel from San Joaquin Hills Road
toFord Road ------------------------------------------------ Page 8
Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to 30th Street --------- Page 8
Balboa Boulevard from 33rd Street to 44th Street ------------ Page 8
Irvine Coast Area -------------------------------------------- Page 8
Implementation ------------------------------------------------ Page 11
Project Priorities ------------------------------------------- Page 11
Financing Resources ----------------------------------------- Page 12
Financially Attainable Program ------------------------------ Page 12
Land Use Regulations ---------------------------------------- Page 16
Advanced Right -of -Way Purchase ------------------------------ Page 16
Access Control ---------------------------------------------- Page 17
Master Plan of Streets and Highways --------------------------- Page 18
Bikeways------------------------------------------------------ Page 22
Amendments--------------------------------- -------------Page 27
I,J
II
INTRODUCTION
The Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan is based upon
the Newport Beach Traffic Study prepared by the Consultant Firm of Alan
M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc.
Alan M. Voorhees & Associates was authorized to begin work on a three -
phased study for the development of a transportation plan for the City
of Newport Beach in October, 1971. Assisting in this study were
Behavior Science Corporation of Los Angeles, and Toups Engineering,
Inc., of Santa Ana. Phase I defined the magnitude and location of
present and future problems. Phase II investigated alternative
transportation plans which could provide for future travel demands,
receive public acceptance, and create minimal environmental dis-
turbance. The Phase III Report covers the final stages of the study
and recommends an implementation program of specific improvement
projects. Alternative plans were evaluated, and a final plan was
recommended by the Consultant. The Consultant's report is the basic
source document for the Circulation Element and should be referred to
for the various alternatives •that were considered in developing this
report.
A Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee was authorized by the
City Council in October, 1970 for the purpose of meeting with the
Consultant throughout each phase of the study to provide citizen input.
The Committee held approximately 38 evening meetings during the three
study phases, many of these meetings lasted four hours or more.
Throughout the study, the Citizens Advisory Committee strongly pre-
sented the citizens' point of view in their considerations and deliber-
ations, while the Consultant attempted to present the best realistic
technical solutions to the City's transportation problems. The final
recommendations contained within the Phase III report represent the
best technical solutions that the Consultant felt would receive the
necessary public support for implementation.
-1-
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
It is intended that this Element satisfy the State requirement that
local General Plans contain a "circulation element."
Section 65302 of the Government Code states in part, that local General
Plans shall include:
"A circulation element consisting of the general location and
extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, trans-
portation 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 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 implementa-
tion.
C. A diagram, map or other graphic representation showing
the proposed circulation system.
D. A description of the proposed circulation systems and
the interrelationships among system parts.
E. Standards and criteria for the location, design,
operation and levels of service of circulation facili-
ties.
F. A guide to the implementation of the circulation
system."
- 2 -
II
ly�
II
II
EI
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
P R O P O S A L S
Basic Concept
The area's cultural activities, financial activities, commercial
activities, industrial activities, civic activities, and recreational
activities, all place their demands upon a transportation system which
should bring people to activity centers, allow them to circulate among
activities and carry them back to their point of origin. In that
regard, it would appear to be clear that as much as an urban area
requires transportation facilities which provide easy access and
circulation for persons within, it is just as important that people and
vehicles without interest, origin, or destination in the area be kept
out. The key to the solution of the traffic problems in Newport Beach
is the development of a major bypass route around the City, so that
through traffic does not use the Coast Highway traffic corridor. This
proposal is consistent with the policies contained within the General
Plan Policy Report adopted by the City Council on March 21, 1972.
A corollary policy to the development of a major bypass route is
development of a series of major arterials in a north -south direction
for people and vehicles with a specific destination within Newport
Beach.
Master Plan of Streets and Highways
Attached is a map entitled "Newport Beach Circulation Element - Master
Plan of Highways (page 28)." It is intended that the Master Plan of
Highways satisfy the State requirement that the Circulation Element
contain a diagram or map. The major proposals described within the
Element are illustrated on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways.
The road classifications are the same as used by Orange County for the
Master Plan of Arterial Highways. These can be summarized as follows:
Approx.
Road
R. of W.
Width Curb
# of
Median
Capacity
Classif.
- Feet
- Curb.Ft.
Lanes
Width.Ft.
ADT*
Freeway
Variable
Variable
4
Variable
55,000
Variable
Variable
6
Variable
100,000
Variable
Variable
8
Variable
135,000
Major
Modified
Variable
Variable
8
Variable
55,000
Major
120
102
6
14-18
40,000
Primary
100
84
4
16-20
25,000
6
0-4
35,000
Secondary 80 64 4 0 14,000
*(ADT) Average Daily Traffic
- 3 -
Couplets
Secondary couplet -
Primary couplet
Major couplet
2 lanes for each leg
3 lanes for each leg
4 lanes for each leg
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 confor-
mance with the plans of the County and all adjacent cities. The
proposed relocation of Pacific Coast Highway and the Corona del Mar
Freeway, and the extension of 17th Street have 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 Highways for
each of these routes represent the policy of the City of Newport Beach.
Although the Newport Beach Circulation Element is limited to the
boundaries of the City, coordination efforts with adjacent and sur-
rounding jurisdictions must at some point be accomplished. The absence
of coordination in the study was not an oversight. The City desired to
proceed with no constraints in the development of a plan, recognizing
that differences in the presently -adopted Orange County Master Plan of
Arterial Highways would have to be resolved.
CIFIC PROPOSALS
1. Corona del Mar Freeway - Bonita/Coyote Canyon Alignment. This
project provides for the construction and continuation of the
Corona del Mar Freeway downcoast through Bonita/Coyote Canyon.
The present State -adopted route is the same alignment as "old"
MacArthur Boulevard and, therefore, this proposal is shown on the
Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a route that requires
further coordination. The importance of constructing the Corona
del Mar Freeway on the Bonita/Coyote Canyon alignment and continu-
ing downcoast cannot be over stressed. This particular alignment
provides an attractive alternate route which will divert an es-
timated 15,000 vehicles per day away from the Coast Highway
corridor.
2. Coast Highway Between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard.
The future 24-foot minimum widening of Coast Highway between the
Santa Ana River and 59th Street will be on the southerly side; and
from 59th Street to Newport Boulevard, the widening will be on the
northerly side. Additional widening beyond the 24-foot minimum
will be required at intersections to provide for turning lanes.
- 4 -
3. Interchange at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway. This project
provides for the construction of a new interchange on Coast
Highway at Newport Boulevard. No specific geometries are sug-
gested other than a single structure for the interchange.
Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities will be included in
this project.
4. Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard. It is
proposed that this segment of Coast Highway be widened to a major
road (six travel lanes and a center median) with a right-of-way
width of 112 feet. The additional 12 feet of width will be added
to the northerly side of Coast Highway.
5. Coast Highway from Upper Bay Bridge to Dover Drive. This project
includes the construction of a bridge on Coast Highway across the
Bay to replace the existing bridge which is not only deficient in
capacity, but is becoming structurally deficient. A bridge of
relatively low profile would permit most trailerable vessels to
pass under. Provisions are planned for bicyclists, pedestrians
and transit. The plan includes widening of Dover Drive to provide
two right turning lanes from Coast Highway to Dover Drive. The
bridge would essentially be eight lanes, six lanes of which would
provide for relatively free flow of traffic, the additional width
being for the other facilities. No traffic deficiency is projec-
is
ted with this design. These improvements would eliminate what
considered to be the most heavily -congested section in the City of
Newport Beach.
6. Coast Highway Between Jamboree Road and the Upper Bay Bridge.
This improvement provides for widening Coast Highway to six lanes
from Jamboree Road to the proposed Upper Bay Bridge replacement.
This segment of Coast Highway will have signalized intersections
at Jamboree Road, Promontory Point and Bayside Drive. Future
capacity deficiencies can be expected to occur at these intersec-
tions. It is important that this project be implemented in
conjunction with the improvements to the new Upper Bay Bridge.
7. Coast Highway from MacArthur to Jamboree Road. This project is
the widening of Coast Highway to six lanes from MacArthur Boule-
vard to Jamboree Road. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities
will be included in this project. In addition, a one-way couplet
on MacArthur and Avocado between Coast Highway and San Joaquin
Hills Road is to be given further study.
8. Coast Highway from MacArthur through Corona del Mar. This segment
of Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard through Corona del Mar
includes proposals for additional street improvements, improved
signalization and additional off-street parking. The Fifth Avenue
corridor was considered and rejected as an alternative because of
lack of community support and other considerations. In addition,
it will be the policy of the City of Newport Beach to develop
additional off-street commercial parking. Traffic deficiencies on
Ii
this section will be substantially reduced with the construction
of the major road network to the north and east, particularly the
Corona del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin Hills Road, and connecting
north -south roads such as Canyon Crest Drive.
9. Superior Avenue. This project is essentially widening Superior
Avenue on the existing alignment to four lanes divided. A short
new section would be constructed on the southerly end to connect
as a tee intersection with Coast Highway. With Coast Highway
relocated northerly of its present alignment, the increased
elevation of Coast Highway would enable good alignment and grade
to be maintained on Superior Avenue. No traffic capacity defi-
ciencies are projected.
10. 15th Street from Superior Avenue Westerly. This is a partially
new road which is on the present Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
It involves the widening of existing 15th Street to four lanes
undivided to a point just westerly of Monrovia Avenue, and
continuing on with new construction at four lanes divided,
crossing and intersecting with the proposed relocated Coast
Highway, then turning southerly and connecting as a tee intersec-
tion with existing Coast Highway. This roadway provides a good
alternate for the south part of Superior Avenue.
11. Dover Drive from Nestcliff to Coast •Highway. This project
provides for the widening of Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive to
Coast Highway. This project on the existing alignment will
improve this section to full major roadway status and complement
the improvements being made at Dover Drive and Coast Highway.
12, Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Corona del Mar Freeway. This
project is the widening of Jamboree Road to six lanes from Coast
Highway to the Corona del Mar Freeway. All the right-of-way for
widening this route is available. Although Jamboree Road is a
very important route now, its importance will increase as Upper
Bay develops. No capacity deficiency is projected for Jamboree
Road, providing traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree splits evenly.
13. MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road.
The following shall pertain to MacArthur Boulevard from Coast
Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road:
A. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel
Drive shall be improved to lower the grade up to 13 feet, and
align the road approximately 50 feet west of the existing
center line; install necessary sound walls to mitigate noise,
and submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the
city Council.
B. Two outside through lanes in each direction on MacArthur
Boulevard shall be constructed so that additional lanes
constructed, when required by the City, will occur towards
'%s
the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and
the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive.
C. That prior to the construction of through lanes in excess of
four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a
prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive, the following
criteria, as a minimum, shall be met:
1) Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Primary Arterial con-
figuration (4 lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the
intersection of MacArthur Boulevard.
2) An average weekday volume -to -capacity ratio of 1.00 on
MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View
Drive. In adopting this criteria relative to the
widening of MacArthur Boulevard, it is the position of
the City Council that a primary purpose in considering
this General Plan Amendment is the reduction of diver-
sion traffic through residential streets in Corona del
Mar. It is anticipated that if the average weekday
volume -to -capacity ratio on MacArthur Boulevard reached
1.00, diversions to local Corona del Mar streets such as
Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Street, and Fifth Avenue would
occur.
3) Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial
configuration (4 lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass
Hill Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road.
D. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commis-
sion and the City Council to verify satisfaction of the
criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening.
E. That funding for this project shall consider the City's Fair
Share Fee program, and/or other possible available sources.
14. MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to State Route 73.
From San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road, MacArthur Boulevard will
be a Major Road (6 lanes, divided); from Ford Road to State Route
73, MacArthur Boulevard will be 8 lanes, divided.
15. San Joaquin Hills Road from "Old" MacArthur to Spy Glass Hills
Road. This project is the widening of San Joaquin Hills Road from
State Route 73 to Spy Glass Hills Road to a full six -lane major
highway. All the necessary right-of-way is available. Further
extension to the east will depend on how and when the area
develops.
16. Bison Avenue Between Jamboree and MacArthur. This is a short
section of Bison Avenue -being developed as a primary road connec-
tor between two major roads, Jamboree and MacArthur. This route
- 7 -
I�
will provide an important circulation element in the system when
the Corona del Mar Freeway is constructed.
17. Ford Road from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard. This project
involves the upgrading of Ford Road to primary status between
Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. It is important enough to
be a top -priority project.
18. University Drive from Tustin Avenue to Corona del Mar Freeway.
This project is the construction of University Drive from Tustin
Avenue to the Corona del Mar Freeway to link with the section of
University Drive east of State Route 73 in the City of Irvine. A
bridge must be constructed across the flood control channel. This
new roadway is very important in the system since it will provide
the major road link around the end of Upper Bay. Because of its
importance, some capacity deficiency could develop, particularly
if construction on the Corona del Mar Freeway is substantially
delayed.
19. Avocado Avenue from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road.
Avocado Avenue between Coast Highway and San Miguel, will be
developed as a secondary road. From San Miguel to San Joaquin
Hills Road, it will be developed as a local street.
20'. San Miguel from San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road. This is a
continuation of San Miguel from San Joaquin to Ford Road.
21. Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to 30th Street. This is a
widening project on Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to 30th
Street. A complete six -lane divided roadway would be provided
with a new bridge across the channel which would replace the
existing bridge. It is expected that some capacity deficiency can
still be expected. However, the improvements will significantly
help the traffic flow.
22. Balboa'Boulevard from 33rd Street to 44th Street. This project is
the widening of Balboa Boulevard to primary status from 33rd
Street to 44th Street. Traffic circulation will be substantially
improved and no capacity deficiency is projected. Any future
widening must be accomplished without a net reduction in existing
City park facilities in the general area.
23. Irvine Coast Area. Arterial roads in the Irvine Coastal Area
include Pacific Coast Highway, Sand Canyon Avenue, Pelican Hill
Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Specific proposal for these
arterial highways are as follows:
A. Pacific Coast Highway:
Pacific Coast Highway is a major (six lane, divided) roadway
providing primary access to the Irvine Coastal Area.
I
I
I
I
II
e
I
I
B. San Canyon Avenue:
Sand Canyon Avenue is designated as a Primary Road, (two lane
divided). This road is proposed to provide sidewalks,
bikeways and one travel lane in each direction with an extra
uphill lane provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic.
C. Pelican Hill Road:
Pelican Hill Road is designated as a Major Road (six lane,
divided). This road is proposed to provide sidewalks,
bikeways, and three travel lanes in each direction. An extra
uphill lane will be provided to accommodate truck and bus
traffic.
D. San Joaquin Hills Road:
San Joaquin Hills Road is designated as a Major Road (six
lane, divided) connecting the existing terminus of the road
in Newport Beach to Sand Canyon Avenue.
The following policies apply to the circulation system in the Irvine
Coast Area:
1. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract
maps or other implementing regulations for areas inland of Pacific
Coast Highway, the Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns,
shall prepare a phasing program which- shall provide for the
construction of ultimate street improvements in the Irvine Coast
Area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand
Canyon Avenue as primary arterial highway, in a timely manner
meeting the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Relative to
implementation of Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast Area,
The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, and the State of
California shall participate in providing the right-of-way and
grading for the full arterial highway [four (4) lanes, divided],
and the construction of two (2) travel lanes with parking lane,
curb, gutter and sidewalk, and median improvements, while the
State of California shall be responsible for construction of the
additional two (2) lanes in consideration of their need for Sand
Canyon Avenue for Crystal Cove State Park access. Relative to
Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast Area, The Irvine
Company, or its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for
providing the right-of-way and grading for the full major arterial
highway [six (6) lanes, divided], and the construction of four (4)
travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk, and
median improvements and, if the annual Development Monitoring
Program shows that the additional two (2) lanes are necessary to
adequately serve residential, tourist recreation/commercial and/or
recreational transportation needs, no additional development of
any kind shall be approved until The Irvine Company and City agree
on provisions for timely construction of the additional two (2)
lanes.
2. Prior to any development inland of Pacific Coast Highway, a
program shall be established by the developer, subject to the
approval of this Board, to assist in financing of improvements and
dedication of right-of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transporta-
tion Corridor.
3. Prior to recordation of the first tract inland of Pacific Coast
Highway, the developer shall establish a program for providing an
adequate inland circulation system, which system shall include at
least one new road connecting to acceptable inland highways to
serve the plan area other than Pacific Coast Highway and San
Joaquin Hills Road. Such circulation system program shall meet
the approval of the City of Newport Beach and shall include a
phasing program for the developer construction of such new inland
access road.
4. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the one hundred and
first (101st) single family residence or the issuance of the
building permit for the three hundred and fifty-first (351st)
hotel or motel room (and directly related support facilities not
to exceed 26,000 square feet) inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the
developer shall construct and complete a new inland road connec-
tion to serve the area other than Pacific Coast Highway and San
Joaquin Hills Road, all in accordance with the approved Inland
Circulation System Program.
- 10 -
111
IMPLEMENTATION
Final locations of new routes require detailed study of real property,
soil conditions, utilities, and intimate correlation with land use
plans. Routes shown in this report which are not on existing align-
ments show general rather than exact locations. Final locations will
be worked out only when it is feasible to acquire property or to begin
construction. In short, the plan describes a full system or network as
the base from which to work towards more detailed and exact locations.
In determining specific routes, it is of prime importance to remember
that no matter how well a program is developed, little will be ac-
complished if public acceptance and support is not received. It is not
usually very difficult to determine those improvements which will solve
pure traffic problems and provide a good level of service. Often,
however, the purely technical solution does not receive public support,
and in some instances, it may not be possible to truly assess what may
be acceptable at the time of implementation. The immediate or shorter
range projects very often receive the most attention.
Project Priorities
Of immediate importance in implementing this plan are the questions of
what to build first and what to build next. While there may be some
agreement for the need of a large and accelerated program, much of the
construction is far in the future and may seem relatively unimportant
in contrast to the real problem of what to build first or next. The
problem of priorities is very important in directing the engineering
and construction program towards efficient plan implementation.
A variety of factors should be considered in assigning construction
priorities. Available and committed financing is always a key factor.
Availability of engineering studies, land use development programs,
traffic needs, and system continuity must all be considered. In view
of traffic needs, public interest, and investigative work already done,
projects of most immediate need were not too difficult to classify.
The further one tries to look into the future, the more difficult it
becomes to assign meaningful priorities. Projects were classified into
categories A, B, C, and D and are arranged in that way in Table 4.
Classification A is the highest priority or most immediate concern,
while classification D represents those projects not likely necessary
for many years. No attempt has been made to further refine the
priorities since actual order of construction will be affected by
several factors such as available funds, timing of land development,
coordination between projects, and ability of other entities such as
the State to provide improvements. Therefore, while those projects
classified A may be the most important, it may not be possible or
practical to attain all of them ahead of some projects in classifica-
tion B.
Financing Resources
The final question in evaluating the proposed transportation plan is
financing - Can the capital investment required to obtain the economic
and level of service improvements be afforded? There are no analytical
techniques which can answer this question. It is a matter of policy
which depends on how the community wishes to allocate total resources
among many public services. The approach taken here is one of review-
ing present and probable future allocations and determining whether
this will result in sufficient funds to support the implementation
program.
The City derives its revenues for street right-of-way purchase, design
and construction from gas tax apportionment, County funds and Federal
funds. The total of these revenues will average approximately $10.30
per capita in 1974 and will provide approximately $620,000. In 1990,
with population estimated at 100,000, the annual revenue will be
$1,030,000 based on these same apportionments. The estimated annual
available revenues from 1974 to 1990 for rights -of -way, design and
construction are shown on Table 1. For the 17-year period from 1974 to
1990, the average annual revenue•is about $770,000.
Financially Attainable Program
It would be quite coincidental if the available revenue for street
construction matched the needs. Historically there have seldom been
areas where the needed program could be attained when desired.
Sufficient funding is usally not available and the program lags. The
main alternatives in such cases are to reduce the size of the program,
obtain additional revenues, or a combination of these two things. If
the decision is to continue road construction at the present level of
funding, then priorities become even more important, and the program
must stretch out beyond the usually accepted 20-year planning span. It
is a possibility, of course, that not all of the projects proposed
herein will be needed in 20 years.
- 12 -
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED CITY REVENUES FOR RIGHTS -OF -WAY,
DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION
Estimated City Gas Tax Revenue by Year, $1,000's*
1974
$ 620
1975
640
1976
670
1977
700
1978
720
1979
750
1980
770
1981
800
1982
830
1983
850
1984
880
1985
900
1986
930
1987
950
1988
980
1989
1,000
1990
1,030
Total: $13,120
Average for 17 years e $770,000
*Based on population increasing
from 60,000 to 100,000
and present
level of funding which includes:
City Gas Tax Funds
$ 5.00 per
capita
County A.H.F.P. Funds
3.00 per
capita
County Bridge Funds
0.30 per
capita
F.A.U. Funds
2,00 per
capita
Total: $ 10.30
- 13 -
Priority
Classification
A
B
C
D
Totals
TABLE 2
S@MARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF RIGHTS-OF-AAY, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Division of Costs, $1,000's
Newport Beachl
$ 4,380
6,460
4,140
1.720
$ 17,150
State Other Entities Totals
$ 7,990 $ 2,510 $ 15,330
15,430 3,130 25,020
1,340 1,840 7,320
$ 24,760 .$ 7,730
$ 49,640
1 Assumes 20%
City participation in two State
projects on Coast
Highway: Dover Drive
interchange, and
Newport Boulevard to Santa Ana River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATP.D AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES NEEDED, $1,000's
Length of Program.
Years Newport Beach
State
Other Entities
Totals
20
$ 857.5
$ 1,238.
$ 386.5
$ 2,482.
25
686.
990.4
309.2
1,985.6
30
571.7
825.3
257.7
1,654.6
- 14 -
no M am 'e Ism .00 ,am so ,ow low M MW 9M O N
Table 2 is a summary of estimated costs by priority classification and
anticipated funding responsibility. Since it is not known to what
extent the City may participate in projects involving State highways,
an estimate of 20% of costs to the City was made for those projects
where there may likely be City participation. Table 2 shows that the
total costs for priority classifications A through D are $17,150,000
for Newport Beach, $24,760,000 for the State and $7,730,000 for other
entities such as the County, other cities and private developers, for a
total of $49,640,000.
From Table 1 we have seen that the estimated average annual City
revenue available for rights -of -way, design and construction is about
$770,000 based on a 17-year projection. This is far short of being
able to finance a 20-year implementation plan. Table 3 shows an
average annual expenditure of $857,500 is necessary for a 20-year plan
and a 30-year program will require $571,700.
City revenues available for rights -of -way design and construction are
based on per capita, with anticipated population being 100,000 by 1990.
Other sources of revenue could be considered to increase annual
revenues available for roads. . However, there is a current trend
towards diverting funds to other uses previously designated for road
purposes. Rather than assume additional funds may be available for
road purposes, it was assumed funding will remain constant on a per
capita basis. This is certainly not an optimistic approach, but may
prove to be the most realistic. Further, the present methods of
funding are, not geared to keep pace with inflationary construction
costs and without some changes in these methods, the program could be
substantially underfunded.
With an anticipated shortage of road funds, a way of approaching this
matter is to consider only those projects which are in priority
classification "A", and treat them as immediate and short range, say a
total construction period of five years. The City portion of these
projects is $4,830,000. Table I shows the estimated available revenues
for the first five years (1974-1978) is $3,350,000, which means there
is a City shortage of $1,480,000 for the first five-year increment.
Assuming no additional funds are available, the question to be answered
is: "What can be eliminated from the five-year program to reduce
expenditures by $1,480,0007" A review of Priority A projects in Table
4 shows this is a most difficult question to answer. It was stated in
Table 2 that 20% of Coast Highway -Dover Drive -Upper Bay Bridge costs
were assigned to the City, which amounts to $1,300,000. If that amount
was eliminated as City participation, or at least substantially
reduced, the "A" projects would more closely fit into a five-year plan.
So far nothing has been said about the ability of the State or other
entities to finance the construction program. Other entities include
other cities and private development, and the total costs are substan-
tially less. Costs to private development usually come in right-of-way
dedication and street construction adjacent to property being develop-
ed, which means the improvements precede or closely follow the needs.
- 15 -
Other cities finance road improvements in much the same way as Newport
Beach. An example of an "Other Cities" project is the construction of
Del Mar Avenue from Newport Freeway to Tustin Avenue with an estimated
cost of $2,330,000. This project is in the City of Costa Mesa.Table 2
shows the estimated State costs for Priority A projects total
$12,510,000. If we again assume a five-year program, this amounts to
an average annual expenditure of $502,000. Whether the State can
budget these amounts will depend on statewide funding levels and
priorities. The replacement of the existing Upper Bay Bridge on Coast
Highway and improvements at Coast Highway and Dover Drive should be of
such importance to rank in the State's top priority projects.
In summary, assuming the entire road system will or should be built in
20 years, there are insufficient revenues under present City road
funding practices to implement all projects within a 20-year span.
From the current trends in road funding, additional funds cannot be
expected. Some projects will have to be delayed and priorities
frequently updated to ensure that the most essential projects receive
first consideration.
Land Use Regulations
The alternate transportation plans were developed to serve a specific
existing and proposed land use. If actual land development in the
future departs significantly from the planned pattern, many of the
projected benefits of the highway construction program may be lost.
This is true both in terms of achieving overall higher levels of
traffic service as well as coordinating land development and highway
construction. It is not only a serious consideration within Newport
Beach, but also in the adjacent communities which have a substantial
effect on traffic in Newport Beach. It must also be remembered that
Newport Beach can have a substantial effect on traffic in surrounding
jurisdictions.
Advanced Right -of -Way Purchase
Not too many years ago a familiar saying was: "No one wants a highway
on his property, just near it." Today the saying must be modified for
those who don't want a highway anywhere near their property, or for
that matter anywhere at all. However, property must have access and
people must be provided good transportation facilities. Few people are
enthusiastic about selling their property at someone else's recommenda-
tion even though being compensated for the property including financial
assistance for residential or business relocation. These are natural
and immediate reactions as people and businesses are required to move
and readjust. These disruptions and shifts of people and businesses
can be minimized through good planning.
There are many ways in which the process can be improved, a most
important one being advance designation and purchase of rights -of -way.
It is possible to work out final locations of routes and to plan future
land developments around these commitments. Designation of future
- 16 -
�t
locations allows consolidation of local land planning and zoning. In
fast growing areas, land development and transportation facilities can
proceed together. Definite commitments enable the adjustment of people
and land uses to a revised highway system.
To make this process of advance designation of specific rights -of -way
both fair and effective, the responsible agencies should have funds for
buying the required property in advance. Zoning and other legal means
can control land development, but cannot reserve land for ultimate•
highway purchase thereby preventing building on the land. The most
practical way of making advance transportation location designations is
to purchase right-of-way as far in advance of construction as is
consistent with the public interest.
Access Control
Transportation facilities in recent years have usually been built with
either full control or no control of access. often, this all or none
situation prevents agencies charged with transportation from responding
in an effective manner. While full control of access around a freeway
is important, the arterial street or highway is the backbone of the
City in terms of land development and traffic service, and some access
control should be considered.
Urban arterials should primarily serve traffic and direct property
access should be minimum. The arterials should provide direct access
to the collector street system and large traffic generators. To plan
and construct such facilities and ensure their future usefulness,
selective control of access is required. Without it, the area may be
left with no arterial type traffic service, and there may not be
opportunity for providing future arterial facilities.
- 17 -
II
TABLE 4
Key
(1)
to Tale
F — Freeway 8 lanes
M — Major 6 lanes
P — Primary 4 lanes
S — Secondary 4 lanes
(2)
NEWPORT BEACH TTtAMC STUDY
PHASE III COMPOSITE PLAN
PROTECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS
N — New Construction (3) Right of way costs include
W — Widen 25% increase in estimated
M — Modification property costs for acquisi-
B — Bridge tion and costs of relocation
assistance. Construction costs
include 20% for contingencies.
P
R
1
(1)
(2) (3) Costs. S1.000'1
Costs by Jurisdiction. S1.000's
O
R
Project Name
Class-
Con- Right- Construc-
Newport
I
and Limits
ifica-
struc- of -Way tion
Total Beach State Other
T
tion
tion
Y
A
Coast Highway Upper Bay
M
B 1,230 5,270
6,500 1,300 (4) 5,200 (4)
Bridge & Dover Drive
r
a
Interchange
A
Coast Highway from
M
W 870 280
1,150 1,150
Jamboree Road to Upper
Bay Bridge
A
Coast Highway from
P
M 40
40 40
MacArthur Blvd. through
Corona del Mar
A
Coast Highway from
M
W 1,100 500
1,600 1,600
MacArthur Blvd. to
Jamboree Road
A
University Drive from
P
N 2,870 1,500
4,370 2,070 2,300
Tustin Avenue to
Corona del Mar Freeway
MW M we SO an we ME Woft r o aft as a" ;m so so rr r r �
TABLE 4 (CONTDWW)
P
R
I
(1)
(2)
(3) Costs.
81.000's
Costs by
Jurisdiction.
S1.000's
0
R
Project Name
Class-
Con-
Right-
Construc-
Newport
I
and Limits
ifica-
struc-
of -Way
tion
Total
Beach
State
Other
T
tion
tion
Y
B
Jamboree Rd from San Joa-
M
W
190
190
100
90
quin Hills Rd to Ford Rd
B
Jamboree Road from Ford
M
W
190
190
90
100
Road to Bison Avenue
B
Jamboree Rd from Bison Ave. M
W&B
1,000
1,000
800
200
to Corona del Mar Freeway
B
Avocado -New MacArthur from
P
N&W
700
600
1,300
300
1,000
Coast Hwy to San Joaquin
r
�o
Hills Road
i
B
New MacArthur from San Joa- P
W&B
290
410
700
350
350
quin Hill Rd. to Ford Rd.
B
Newport Blvd. from Coast
M
W&B
1,800
1,120
2,920
560
2,360
Highway to San Joaquin
Hills Road
C
State Route 73 from San
M
W
200
420
620
620
Joaquin Hills Road to
Ford Road
C
State Route 73 from Ford
M
W
100
210
310
310
310
Road to Bison Avenue
C
San Joaquin Hills Road
M
W
140
140
140
from Marguerite Ave. to
Spy Glass Hills Road
R
I
O
R
Project Name
I
and Limits
T
Y
C
Bison Avenue from
MacArthur Blvd. to
Jamboree Road
C
15th Street from
Superior Avenue to
Coast Highway
C
Balboa Boulevard
from 33rd to 44th
i
No D
Balboa Blvd.
(1) (2)
Class- Con-
ifica- struc-
tion tion
P N&W
TABLE 4 (CONTnWED)
(3) Costs, $1.000's
Right- Construc-
o£-Way tion Total
P N&W 2,770
P W 1,500
Costs by Jurisdiction, $1,000's
Newport
Beach State Other
250 150 100
820 3,690 1,850 1,840
500 2,000 2,000
500 500 250 250
M an am an In r ,r ,M SO on so as M Im on, M a• am M
1
C
� c
4
i`j'r2 '✓' '
I�y'1. P'
t
V
CRCLgj L E
w'w w'ITJM
Y �ry w
&I�'-LWlill�Vu�1
`I
0 Routes That Require Further Coordinationn,
OHIO Secondary Road (Far Lau Undivided).
8 ad (Four Lone Divided ).
ll
B Mayor Road (Sfx Lane Divided ).
M*r
PER Eight Lane Divided
B Adopted Freeway Routes.
m Interchange — Bridge Z Couplet
B City of Newport Beach Sphere of hdluenc
BIKEWAYS
Local Needs
The needs of bicyclists will vary with the function of the trip and the
speed of the rider. In addition, children riding bicycles for any
purpose will have special needs in terms of safety.
Those residents who use bicycle:
of transportation are concerned
direct route available to reach
is a general aversion and reluc
tion travel. Inconveniently s
used. Studies have shown one t
travel is about the limit, depei
These bicyclists normally will
major highway. In contrast, 1
route for its scenic interest
space character. The recreatioi
on a bike trail separated from
i daily as their primary means and mode
with utilizing the most convenient and
their destination. Consequently, there
tance to any significant out-of-direc-
ituated bikeways will not normally be
:o three blocks out of the direction of
iding upon the distance to be traveled.
select a route along a primary or a
:he recreational rider might choose a
such as a harbor view or for its open
ial rider will generally prefer to ride
vehicular traffic. 'Thus, it is neces-
sary to provide bikeways for bicyclists along major transportation
corridors as well as residential and scenic areas.
Fast cyclists ride at 12-25 miles per hour. They are usually ex-
perienced riders, and mix poorly with pedestrians, children and
recreational cyclists because of their speed. Slower cyclists ride at
average speeds of 8-12 mile per hour. They mix well with child
cyclists; only the slowest cyclists mix well with pedestrians, but
poorly with motor vehicles. It is thus necessary to provide bikeways
which separate faster cyclists from pedestrian travel and children,
integrating bicycle travel more closely with vehicular traffic, and
bikeways which separate slower cylcists from motor vehicle traffic.
Children would also be expected to utilize the latter routes.
Regional Needs
Several regional bikeways pass through the City of Newport Beach.
These bikeways provide alternate circulation routes and access to areas
of interest on a regional basis. Bikeways are an important component
of the local recreation and transportation spectrum. Some potential
sites have been identified as those which are appropirate for bikeways
or have already been designated to be served by such a trail. The City
can work closely with regional and other local governments to coor-
dinate regional bikeway connections to local bikeways and to popular
destinations for bicyclists which are located in the City.
Classification of Bikewaya
Bikeway is the term used to designate all facilities which provide for
bicycle travel. The Master Plan of Bikeways include various types of
facilities to provide for both transportation and recreation cyclists,
faster and slower cyclists, and children. In order to serve varying
needs, the City of Newport Beach provides the following types of
facilities:
- 22 -
AV
hI
11
I
1. Bicycle Lane. A lane in the street, normally the parking lane, or
a separate lane, designated for the exclusive or semi -exclusive use of
bicycles. Though travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is not
allowed, vehicle parking may or may not be allowed. Crossflow by
motorists to gain access to driveways and parking facilities is
allowed. Separation from the motor vehicle traveled way is normally by
a painted solid stripe (bicycle lanes and bicycle routes together are
also known as Class 3 bicycle trails).
2. Bicycle Route. A shared right-of-way for bicycle operation,
whether or not it is specified by signs or markings. All main streets
and highways by authority of the California Vehicle Code include biycle
routes as defined herein (bicycle lanes and bicycle routes together are
also known as Class 3 bicycle trails).
3. Bicycle Trail. A pathway designated for the use of bicycles which
is physically separated from motor vehicular traffic. Pedestrian
traffic may or may not be excluded. (Also known as Class 1 bicycle
trail.)
4. Backbone Bikeway. Backbone bikeways are major throughway trails
that connect to regional trails. They are primarily on major roads and
serve the functional and recreational cyclist. (May be a bicycle lane,
route or trail.)
5. Secondary Bikeway. Secondary Bikeways connect to backbone trails
and serve cyclists and children riding to and from school. (May be a
bicycle lane, route or trail.)
Objective Policies and Programs
Objective:
A safe, convenient, and enjoyable system of bikeways to provide
for the needs of all types of bicyclists including children and
adults; fast and slow bicyclists; and functional and recreational
cyclists.
Policy:
The City shall endeavor to provide sale bikeways, giving special
attention to child safety, as a first priority item.
Program: Bike trails mapped on the Master Plan of bikeways shall
be developed consistent with the City's ability to do so.
Program: Careful consideration shall be given to the linkage of
schools and residences in the formulation of plans for individual
bikeways.
Program: The City shall investigate means of reducing motor
vehicle and bicycle conflicts when complete separation is impos-
sible or when the results of such separation is unsatisfactory,
other methods of improving safety will be pursued.
- 23 -
it
-
r
Program: The Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee shall maintain
records of bicycle accidents and collect available literature on
bicycle safety.
Policy: The City shall endeavor to provide safe bikeways in convenient
locations in the interest of functional bicyclists.
Program: The City shall endeavor to provide for the safety of
functional bicyclists along all major streets and highways.
Policy: The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to
encourage cycling as an alternative mode of transportation consistent
with the Master Plan of Bikeways.
Program: The Master Plan of Bikeways shall be implemented
,
concurrent with highway and street improvements, consistent with
the City's financial ability to do so and the availability of
alternative funding sources.
Program: Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a
condition of development approvals.
Program: The City will work with other appropriate agencies for
development of connecting bikeways.
Policy: The City shall endeavor to provide safe and enjoyable bikeways
for recreational purposes.
Program: Bikeways shall be developed to link recreational areas
where feasible.
,
Program: Bikeways shall be developed to take advantage of scenic
views where feasible.
Policy: Bikeways shall be developed in recognition of the rights and
safety of pedestrians.
Program: When possible, bikeways and walkways will be separated.
Policy: In the development of bikeways plans, first priority shall be
given to child safety, second to the needs of functional cyclists, and
third to the desires of recreational cyclists.
implementation r
Bikeways projects could be financed using the City's General Fund or SB
821 Funds. SB 821 Funds are of State origin and are disbursed by the
Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC). They are allocated for
bikeway projects, including but not limited to signs, striping, staging r
areas, bridges, and bike lanes. Candidate projects must be a part of
an adopted plan. The funds are disbursed annually. 50% of the
County's funds are allocated to cities on a population basis. The
remaining 50% are discretionary funds granted after a prescribed
nomination process and technical evaluation.
- 24 -
I
II
Bicycle
Trails Citizens Advisory Committee
The
Bicycle Trails Citizen's Advisory Committee should be directed to:
°
Review planned expansions or changes to the City's,bikeway network
for advisory input to the Department of Public Works and the City
Council.
°
Research bikeway implementation, education and safety techniques.
Report to the City Council annually on report findings and
progress in expanding the bikeway network.
Coordinate with bikeway committees in adjoining communities.
°
Develop public information materials as directed by the City
Council.
Consideration should be given to reducing the number of members so as
to create a smaller technical advisory board.
C\WP\CIRC\
- 25 -
N
P
A C
R � C
p C E A N
astir ' a
o =i e N s
L
E
E
�I
D
+� � � � � � � r � �■n � � � � � r �t � �
Circulation Element
' Amendment Sheets
1
1
-27-
Revised July 14, 1986 ,
Listed below are the official amendments to the Circulation
Element, as adopted by the City Council.
General Plan
Amendment
Number
4
Date of
City Council
Adoption
July 22, 1974
Amendment
1. Change the Master Plan of
Streets and Highways' designa-
tion of Irvine Avenue between
15th Street and 16th Street
from a primary road to a secon-
dary 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.
5 July 22, 1974 1. Change the Master Plan of
Streets and Highways designa-
tion of 15th Street between
Placentia Avenue and the
property line between the Bond
Publishing Company site and the
Banning Property (just west of
Monrovia Avenue) from a
"Primary Road" to a "Secondary
Road."
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 1
I!
11
11
11
11
17
11
I
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
5 (Cont.) Revise the second sentence of item
10, Page 9 of the Circulation
Element report to read:
"It involves the widening of
existing 15th Street to four lanes
undivided to a point just westerly
of Monrovia Avenue, and continuing
on with new construction at four
lanes divided, crossing and inter-
secting..."
9 Dec. 9, 1974 Delete the third sentence on Page 8
of the Circulation Element referring
to the "interchange" of Coast
Highway with Dover Drive.
23 (Portion) March 10, 1975 1
2
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 2
Revise the "Master Plan of
Streets and Highways" (map) to
designate Coast Highway through
Mariners' Mile as a "Major Road
- Six Lanes Divided."
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
additonal 12 feet of width will
be added to the northerly side
of Coast Highway."
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
23 (Portion) March 24, 1975 1. Revise the "Master Plan of
Streets and Highways" (map) to
designate Avocado Avenue and
MacArthur Boulevard as a "one-
way couplet."
2. Replace the second and third
sentences of Proposal No. 14,
on Page 11, with the following:
"MacArthur Boulevard and
Avocado ,Avenue, between Coast
Highway and San Joaquin Hills
Road, will be developed as a
one-way couplet with a total of
six travel lanes, three in each
direction."
3. Replace Proposal No. 20, on
Page 12, with the following:
"Avocado Avenue and MacArthur
Boulevard, between Coast
Highway and San Joaquin Hills
Road, will be developed as a
one-way couplet, as discussed
under Proposal No. 14."
77-1-B March 28, 1977 An amendment to the Master Plan of
Streets and Highways to delete the
"Secondary Road - Four Lanes
Undivided" designation for that
portion of Backbay Drive between San
Joaquin Hills Road and the intersec-
tion of Backbay Drive and Jamboree
Road just north of Coast Highway.
78-1-C August 14, 1978 An amendment to the Circulation
Element as follows:
1. Indicate proposed realignment '
of superior Avenue at intersec-
tion with Coast Highway on
Master Plan of Streets and
Highways.
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 3
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption
78-1-C (Cont.)
Amendment
2. Amend Master Plan to show
extension of Balboa Boulevard
north of Coast Highway relo-
cated to a more westerly
alignment.
3. Amend the Circulation Element
text to reflect the ongoing
widening of Coast Highway
between the Santa Ana River and
Newport Boulevard.
4. Delete the previously proposed
northerly alignment of Coast
Highway around Newport Shores
from the Master Plan.
79-2 December 8, 1980 Change the Master Plan of Streets
and Highways as follows:
1. Coast Highway westerly of the
Santa Ana River be designated
as primary road, four lane
divided.
2. Brookhurst Street be designated
major road, six lane divided.
3. 19th Street westerly from Santa
Ana River to Brookhurst be
designated as primary road,
four lane divided.
4. 17th Street between Placentia
Avenue and Balboa Boulevard
extended be designated as
secondary road, four lane
undivided.
5. 17th Street between Newport
Boulevard and Placentia Avenue
be designated as primary road,
four lane divided.
6. Orange Avenue, between 17th
Street and 19th Street be
designated as secondary road,
four lane undivided.
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 4
General Plan
Amendment
Number
79-2 (Cont.)
Date of
City Council
Adoption
Amendment
7. 19th Street, between Irvine
Avenue and Tustin Avenue be
designated as secondary road,
four lane undivided.
8. Del Mar Avenue, between Irvine
Avenue and Newport Boulevard be
designated as primary road,
four lane divided.
9. North Bristol Street, between
University Drive North and Red
Hill be designated as primary
couplet.
10, University Drive, easterly of
MacArthur Boulevard be desig-
nated as major road, six lane
divided.
11. San Miguel Drive, north of Ford
Road be realigned to more
closely conform to alignment
shown on the Master Plans of
Orange County and City of
Irvine.
12. Bonita Canyon Road, easterly of
MacArthur Boulevard be desig-
nated as major road, six lane
divided.
13, San Joaquin Hills Transpor-
tation Corridor - extend
"Routes that require further
consideration" designated as
,major road, six lane divided.
14. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boule-
vard Primary Couplet be
extended to show the couplet
beginning northerly of San
Joaquin; MacArthur Boulevard,
between Avocado Avenue and
Coast Highway be designated as
primary couplet, Avocado avenue
between MacArthur Boulevard and
San Joaquin Hills Road be
designated as primary couplet.
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 5
II
II
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
79-2 (Cont.) 15. Spy Glass Hill Road, between
San Joaquin Hills Road and
Coast Highway be deleted.
The number of lanes to be included
in the various categories of one-
way couplet be defined in the
Circulation Element as follows:
a. Secondary couplet - 2 lanes for
each leg.
b. Primary couplet - 3 lanes for
each leg.
C. Major couplet - 4 lanes for
each leg.
The number of lanes would be
considered to be through -lanes with
added turning lanes being provided,
where necessary, at intersections
and drive entrances.
81-2-F February 11, 1985 The Master Plan of Bikeways and
Bikeways Plan Text is to be incor-
porated into the Circulation
Element.
82-1 October 24, 1983 An amendment to the Circulation
Element as follows:
1. That the Eastbluff Drive exten-
sion be deleted from the City's
Master Plan of Streets and
Highways.
2. That the extension of Univer-
sity Drive South to Eastbluff
Drive North be designated on
the City's Master Plan of
Streets and Highways as a
Primary Road, four lane
divided.
ICirculation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 6
J
General Plan
Amendment
Number
84-1
Date of
City Council
Adoption
September 24, 1984
Amendment
An amendment to the Circulation
Element as follows:
Arterial roads in the Irvine Coastal
Area include Pacific Coast Highway,
84-1 (Cont.)Sand Canyon Avenue,
Pelican Hill Road, and San Joaquin
Hills Road. Specific proposal for
these arterial highways are as
follows:
1. Pacific Coast Highway: Pacific
Coast Highway is a major (six
lane, divided) roadway provid-
ing primary access to the
Irvine Coastal Area.
2. Sand Canyon Avenue: Sand
Canyon Avenue is designated as
a Primary Road (two lane,
divided). This road is
proposed to provide sidewalks,
bikeways and one travel lane in
each direction with an extra
uphill lane provided to
accommodate truck and bus
traffic.
3. Pelican Hill Road: Pelican
Hill Road is designated as a
Major Road (six lane, divided).
This road is proposed to
provide sidewalks, bikeways and
three travel lanes in each
direction. An extra uphill
lane will be provided to accom-
modate truck and bus traffic.
4. San Joaquin Hills Road: San
Joaquin Hills Road is desig-
nated as a Major Road (six
lane, divided) connecting the
existing terminus of the road
in Newport Beach to Sand Canyon
Avenue.
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 7
I
II
General Plan
Amendment
Number
84-1 (Cont.)
Date of
City Council
Adoption
Amendment
The following policies apply to the
circulation system in the Irvine
Coast Area:
1. Concurrent with the approval of
any area plans, tentative tract
maps or other implementing
regulations for areas inland of
Pacific Coast Highway, The
Irvine Company, or its succes-
sors or assigns, shall prepare
a phasing program which shall
provide for the construction of
ultimate street improvements in
the Irvine Coast Area for
Pelican Hill Road as a major
arterial highway and Sand
Canyon Avenue as primary
arterial highway, in a timely
manner meeting the approval of
the City of Newport Beach.
Relative to implementation of
Sand Canyon Avenue within the
Irvine Coast Area, The Irvine
Company, or its successors or
assigns, and the State of
California shall participate in
providing the right-of-way and
grading for the full arterial
highway [four (4) lanes
divided] and the construction
of two (2) travel lanes with
parking lane, curb, gutter and
sidewalk and median improve-
ments, while the State of
California shall be responsible
for construction of the addi-
tional two (2) lanes in con-
sideration of their need for
Sand Canyon Avenue for Crystal
Cove State Park access.
Relative to Pelican Hill Road
within the Irvine Coast Area,
The Irvine Company, or its
successors or assigns, shall be
responsible for providing the
right-of-way and grading for
the full major arterial highway
[six (6) lanes divided] and the
construction of four (4) travel
lanes with parking lane, curb,
gutter and sidewalk and median
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 8
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
84-1 (Cont.) improvements and, if the annual
Development Monitoring Program
shows that the additional two
(2) lanes are necessary to ade-
quately serve residential,
Tourist Recreation/Commercial
and�or recreational transpor-
tation needs, no additional
development of any kind shall
be approved until The Irvine
Company and City agree on
provisions for timely construc-
tion of the additional two (2)
lanes.
2. Prior to any development inland
of Pacific Coast Highway, a
program shall be established by
the developer, subject to the
approval of this Board, to
assist in financing of improve-
ments and dedication of right-
of-way for the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor.
Prior to recordation of the
first tract inland of Pacific
Coast Highway, the developer
shall establish a program for
providing an adequate inland
circulation system, which
system shall include at least
one (1) new road connecting to
acceptable inland highways to
serve the plan area other than
Pacific Coast Highway and San
Joaquin Hills Road. Such
circulation system program
shall meet the approval of the
City of Newport Beach and shall
include a phasing program for
the developer construction of
such new inland access road.
I
11
4. Prior to issuance of the '
building permit for the one
hundred and first (101st)
single family residence or the
issuance of the building permit
for the three hundred and
fifty-first (351st) hotel or
motel room (and directly rela- ,
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 9
I
I
I
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
ted support facilities not to
exceed 26,000 square feet)
inland of Pacific Coast
Highway, the developer shall
construct and complete a new
inland road connection to serve
the area other than Pacific
Coast Highway and San Joaquin
Hills Road, all in accordance
with the approved Inland
Circulation System Program.
86-2(A) July 14, 1986 Amend the Circulation Element as
excerpted from the City Council
Resolution below:
' Add an additional arterial highway
designation, as follows:
Major -Modified: 8-lanes divided..
Change the Master Plan of Streets
and Highways as follows:
' Reclassify the portion of MacArthur
Boulevard between Ford Road and
' State Route 73 as a "Major -Modified"
arterial; 8-lanes, divided.
C\WP\CIRCAMEN.388
1
1
I
[1
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 10
I
Revised June 2, 1986
AMENDMENTS
Listed below are the official amendments to the Circulation Element, as
adopted by the City Council. These amendments are not reflected in the
text or maps contained in this Element.
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption
4 July 22, 1974
5 July 22, 1974
Amendment
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.
1. Change the Master Plan of Streets and
Highways' designation of 15th Street
between Placentia Avenue and the proper-
ty line between the Bond Publishing
Company site and the Banning Property
(just west of Monrovia Avenue) from a
"Primary Road" to a "Secondary Road".
2. Revise the second sentence of Item 10,
Page 9 of the Circulation Element report
to read:
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet -- Page 2
General Plan
Amendment
Number
Date of
City Council
Adoption
Amendment
5 (Continued)
July
22, 1974
"it involves the widening of existing
15th Street to four lanes undivided to a
point just westerly of Monrovia Avenue,
and continuing on with new construction
at four lanes divided, crossing and
intersecting..."
9
Dec.
9, 1974
Delete the third sentence on Page 8 of the
Circulation Element referring to the "inter-
change" of Coast Highway with Dover Drive.
23 (Portion) March 10, 1975 1. Revise the "Master Plan of Streets and
Highways" (map) to designate Coast
Highway through Mariners' Mile as a
"Major Road - Six Lanes 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."
23 (Portion) March 24, 1975 1. Revise the "Master Plan of Streets and
Highways" (map) to designate Avocado
Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard as a
"one-way couplet".
2. Replace the second and third sentences
of Proposal No. 14, on Page 11, with the
following:
"MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado
Avenue, between Coast Highway and
San Joaquin Hills Road, will be
developed as a one-way couplet with
a total of six travel lanes, three
in each direction."
3. Replace Proposal No. 20, on Page 12,
with the following:
"Avocado Avenue and MacArthur
Boulevard, between Coast Highway
and San Joaquin Hills Road, will be
developed as a one-way couplet, as
discussed under Proposal No. 14."
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet -- Page 3
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
77-1-B March 28, 1977 An amendment to the Master Plan of Streets
and Highways to delete the "Secondary Road -
Four Lanes Undivided" designation for that
portion of Backbay Drive between San Joaquin
Hills Road and the intersection of Backbay
Drive and Jamboree Road just north of Coast
Highway.
78-1-C August 14, 1978 An amendment to the Circulation Element as
follows:
1. Indicate proposed realignment of Superi-
or Avenue at intersection with Coast
Highway on Master Plan of Streets and
Highways.
2. Amend Master Plan to show extension of
Balboa Boulevard north of Coast Highway
relocated to a more westerly alignment.
3. Amend the Circulation Element text to
reflect the ongoing widening of Coast
Highway between the Santa Ana River and
Newport Boulevard.
4. Delete the previously proposed northerly
alignment of Coast Highway around
Newport Shores from the Master Plan.
79-2 December 8, 1980 Change the Master Plan of Streets and High-
ways as follows:
1. Coast Highway westerly of the Santa Ana
River be designated as primary road,
four lane divided;
2. Brookhurst Street be designated major
road, six lane divided;
3. 19th Street westerly from Santa Ana
River to Brookhurst be designated as
primary road, four lane divided;
4. 17th Street between Placentia Avenue and
Balboa Boulevard extended be designated
as secondary road, four lane undivided;
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet -- Page 4
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
79-2 (Continued) 5. 17th Street between Newport Boulevard
and Placentia Avenue be designated as
primary road, four lane divided;
6. Orange Avenue, between 17th Street and
19th Street be designated as secondary
road, four lane undivided;
7. 19th Street, between Irvine Avenue and
Tustin Avenue be designated as secondary
road, four lane undivided;
S. Del Mar Avenue, between Irvine Avenue
and Newport Boulevard be designated as
primary road, four lane divided;
9. North Bristol Street, between University
Drive North and Red Hill be designated
as primary couplet;
10. University Drive, easterly of MacArthur
Boulevard be designated as major road,
six lane divided;
11. San Miguel Drive, north of Ford Road be
realigned to more closely conform to
alignment shown on the Master Plans of
Orange County and City of Irvine;
12. Bonita Canyon Road, easterly of
MacArthur Boulevard be designated as
major road, six lane divided;
13. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corri-
dor - extend "Routes that require
further consideration" designated
easterly and show the name;
14. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard
Primary Couplet be extended to show the
couplet beginning northerly of San
Joaquin; MacArthur Boulevard, between
Avocado Avenue and Coast Highway be
designated as primary couplet, Avocado
Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and
San Joaquin Hills Road be designated as
primary couplet;
15. Spy Glass Hill Road, between San Joaquin
Hills Road and Coast Highway be deleted.
Circulation Element Amendment Sheet -- Page 5
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
79-2 (Continued) The number of lanes to be included in the
various categories of one-way couplet be
defined in the Circulation Element as fol-
lows:
a. Secondary couplet - 2 lanes for each leg.
b. Primary couplet - 3 lanes for each leg.
c. Major couplet - 4 lanes for each leg.
The number of lanes would be considered to be
through -lanes with added turning lanes being
provided, where necessary, at intersections
and drive entrances.
81-2-F February 11, 1985 The Master Plan of Bikeways and Bikeways Plan
Text is to be incorporated into the Circula-
tion Element.
82-1 October 24, 1983 An amendment to the Circulation Element as
follows:
1. That the Eastbluff Drive extension be
deleted from the City's Master Plan of
Streets and Highways.
2. That the extension of University Drive
South to Eastbluff Drive North be
designated on the City's Master Plan of
Streets and Highways as a Primary Road,
four lane divided.
84-1 September 24, 1984 An Amendment to the Circulation Element as
follows:
Arterial roads in the Irvine Coastal Area
include Pacific Coast Highway, Sand Canyon
Avenue, Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin
Hills Road. Specific proposal for these
arterial highways are as follows:
1. Pacific Coast Highway:
Pacific Coast Highway is a major (six
lane, divided) roadway providing primary
access to the Irvine Coastal Area.
Circulation Amendment Sheet -- Page 6
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
84-1 (Continued) 2. Sand Canyon Avenue:
Sand Canyon Avenue is designated as a
Primary Road, (two lane, divided). This
road is proposed to provide sidewalks,
bikeways and one travel lane in each
direction with an extra uphill lane
provided to accommodate truck and bus
traffic.
3. Pelican Hill Road:
Pelican Hill Road is designated as a
Major Road (six lane, divided). This
road is proposed to provide sidewalks,
bikeways and three travel lanes in each
direction. An extra uphill lane will be
provided to accommodate truck and bus
traffic.
4. San Joaquin Hills Road:
San Joaquin Hills Road is designated as
a Major Road (six lane, divided) con-
necting the existing terminus of the
road in Newport Beach to Sand Canyon
Avenue.
The following policies apply to the circu-
lation system in the Irvine Coast Area:
1. Concurrent with the approval of any area
plans, tentative tract maps or other
implementing regulations for areas
inland of Pacific Coast Highway, The
Irvine Company, or its successors or
assigns, shall prepare a phasing program
which shall provide for the construction
of ultimate street improvements in the
Irvine Coast Area for Pelican Hill Road
as a major arterial highway and Sand
Canyon Avenue as primary arterial
highway, in a timely manner meeting the
approval of the City of Newport Beach.
Relative to implementation of Sand
Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast
Area, The Irvine Company, or its succes-
sors or assigns, and the State of
California shall participate in provid-
ing the right-of-way and grading for the
full arterial highway (four (4) lanes
divided) and the constructions of two
(2) travel lanes with parking lane,
curb, gutter and sidewalk and median im-
Circulation Amendment Sheet -- Page 7
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption
Amendment
84-1 (Continued
provements, while the State of Califor-
nia shall be responsible for construc-
tion of the additional two (2) lanes in
consideration of their need for Sand
Canyon Avenue for Crystal Cove State
Park access. Relative to Pelican Hill
Road within the Irvine Coast Area, The
Irvine Company, or its successors or
assigns, shall be responsible for
providing the right-of-way and grading
for the full major arterial highway (six
(6) lanes divided) and the construction
of four (4) travel lanes with parking
lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk and
median improvements and, if the annual
Development Monitoring Program shows
that the additional two (2) lanes are
necessary to adequately serve residen-
tial, Tourist Recreation/Commercial and/
or recreational transportation needs, no
additional development of any kind shall
be approved until The Irvine Company and
City agree on provisions for timely con-
struction of the additional two (2)
lanes.
2. Prior to any development inland of
Pacific Coast Highway, a program shall
be established by the developer, subject
to the approval of this Board, to assist
in financing of improvements and dedica-
tion of right-of-way for the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor.
3. Prior to recordation of the first tract
inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the
developer shall establish a program for
providing an adequate inland circulation
system, which system shall include at
least one (1) new road connecting to
acceptable inland highways to serve the
plan area other than Pacific Coast
Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road.
Such circulation system program shall
meet the approval of the City of Newport
Beach and shall include a phasing
program for the developer construction
of such new inland access road.
Circulation Amendment Sheet -- Page 8
General Plan Date of
Amendment City Council
Number Adoption Amendment
84-1 (Continued) 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit
for the one hundred and first (101st)
single family residence or the issuance
of the building permit for the three
hundred and fifty-first (351st) hotel or
motel room (and directly related support
facilities not to exceed 26,000 square
feet) inland of Pacific Coast Highway,
the developer shall construct and
complete a new inland road connection to
serve the area other than Pacific Coast
Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, all
in accordance with the approved inland
Circulation System Program.
NBGP5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED MEETING
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1:
DO SNOT REMOVE
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN;
REVIEW OF THE NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY, PHASE III,
AND ACCEPTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR/NB 73-045.
TRANSCRIPTION OF TAPE RECORDING
February 28, 1974,
7:30 O'clock, p. m.,
Council Chambers,
City Hall,
Newport Beach, California.
Macauleg & Manning
Court A Deposition Reporters
811 N Broadway • Santa Ana. Calif
(714) 542 2317 (213) 437 1327
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I N D E X
CITY COUNCIL:
DONALD MC INNIS, Mayor
HOWARD.ROGERS, Mayor Pro-Tem
RICHARD CROUL
MILAN DOSTAL
CARL KYMLA
PAUL RYCKOFF
JOHN STORE
CITY STAFF:
DENNIS D. O'NEIL,'City Attorney
LAURA LAIGOS, City Clerk
ROBERT WYNN, City Manager
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
P R O C E E D I N G S
MAYOR MC INNIS: Please come to order. We will
start the Agenda with roll call.
CITY CLERK: All present.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Reading of ordinances and
resolutions, Madam Clerk. Excuse me; that's not Madam Clerk.
Is action on reading of ordinances and resolutions -- --
COONCILMAN ROGERS: Mr. Mayor, I move that we waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and
order the City Clerk to read by title only.
MAYOR MC INNIS: There is a motion on the floor.
Is there any discussion? (No response to the question.)
What is the vote?
CITY CLERK: All ayes. Carried.
MAYOR MC INNIS: I have an announcement to make.
I suspect there are peopie in the audience who have heard of
Murhphy's Law.
Murphy's Law comes in three parts -- everything
costs more than it should, everything takes longer than it
ought, and if anything can go wrong it probably will.
We've already seen the first two parts of Murphy's
Law in operation, and tonight, we're seeing the third part.
I'm going to read a statement, and then you will understand
what the problem is:
The State law requires that before adopting
1 (213) 437.1327 MACAULEY Sc MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1 (714) 542.2317
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I
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.
Tonight's meeting was not properly noticed
as a Public Hearing, as required by law, due to an unfortuna
clerical error.
This error came to the attention of myself,
and the City Manager's staff, at 4:30 this afternoon.
Accordingly, the City Council can not make any findings, or
take any official action, based on the evidence and testimon
to be presented this evening.
I am advised by the City Attorney that those
persons in attendance this evening who wish to make
statements or submit written evidence regarding the
Circulation Elements of the General Plan, may do so.
The City Council may, in turn, ask questions
of those persons., for the purpose of fact finding only, and
to obtain a better understanding of the subject under
discussion.
A recording of this proceeding will be taped,
and subsequently transcribed, by the City Clerk. Thereafter,
the transcript will be introduced and become a part of the
official proceedings when this matter is again considered
at a duly noticed legal public hearing.
The public may submit additional testimony
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
It
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
at that time, if they so desire.
Under those circumstances, it becomes very
important for those persons addressing the Council to clearly
state their names and addresses so that such information
will be correctly reflected in the record.
I will make a personal apology to you all, at
this point, and apologize for the Council and -the staff for
a very unfortunate oversight and a very unfortunate clerical
error that did occur.
With that, unless the Council wishes to take
other action, we can not open the Public Hearing, but we
certainly will open this Adjourned Council Meeting for
comments, presentations by the general public, Which will
then become a part of the public record.
I will tell you beforehand that we will run
this meeting as a Regular Council Meeting, as we do all
others, in accordance with the rules of the Council.
Anybody wishing to address the Council,
come forward to the podium, give your name and your address,
and limit your remarks to five minutes, unless otherwise
authorized by the Council.
We will not -- we do not -- go along with
hand clapping, stamping of feet, or other types of emotional
display, which do not do anything but delay the public's
opportunity to address the Council.
Does the Council wish to take any other actior
I
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. 5ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
than to proceed along these lines?
COUNCILMAN KYMLA: Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Councilman Kymla.
COUNCILMAN KYMLA: Mr. Mayor, while this is a very
unfortunate situation -- as you -said, an "oversight" --
there are a lot of people who took the time out to be here
this evening.
While this meeting may be very protracted, it
may be in the public's best interest to determine when the
Public Hearing will be held as soon as possible.
Some people may want to leave now, or later on,
during the course of the presentations, and I'm wondering,
Mr. Mayor, if it would be appropriate to discuss now when we
would hold this Public Hearing.
MAYOR MC INNIS: I think it would be appropriate,
and I think it is an excellent suggestion.
Madam Clerk, can you give us some options?
CITY CLERK: The eighteenth -- March the eighteentY
MAYOR MC INNIS: The earliest date would be what?
CITY CLERK: The earliest would be -- yes, I can
publish on the fourth, so it would have to be ten days from
then -- the fourteenth. March the fourteenth would be the
earliest.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Would be the earliest we could
hold a public hearing? We can not hold a public hearing on
our next regularly scheduled Council Meeting, on the eleventl
12131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 4714) 542.2317
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CITY CLERK: If the Pilot will be able to take the
ad in the morning, and occasionally they will be able to
slip it in on the same day that we call them, we could then
get the advertisement in the Pilot on the first, and the
Hearing could then be held on March the eleventh.
COUNCILMAN KYMLA: Mr. Mayor, the Daily Pilot
representative is nodding his head affirmatively. I think,
then, it would be appropriate, in light of the fact that
there is so much interest in this, and in light of the fact
that I think it is very pertinent that all Council members
be present, I would suggest that we hold our public hearing
as the first order of business, on March the eleventh.
Would you want a motion to that effect?
MAYOR MC INNIS: Yes, you can.
COUNCILMAN KYMLA: Okay.
MAYOR MC INNIS: This is an Adjourned Council
Meeting, and you certainly can vote on that.
COUNCILMAN -- And that it be properly
advertised. I have to kind of laugh at this situation which
has developed, because if we perhaps didn't give the full
ten days notice, would we get this type of turnout for some
of the more mundane things that we do on the Council here,
and I think that this has probably been the most widely
advertised, or notorized [sic] public hearing we've ever
had, and here we are in a legal bind because of a technicali
I would certainly support the motion.
(213) 437.1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 17141 542.2317
II
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MAYOR MC INNIS: Did you make that in the form of
a motion, Councilman?
COUNCILMAN KYMLA: I did.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Is there any discussion on the
motion?
COUNCILMAN KYMLA: I•may have a question, Mr. Mayor.
May I ask the City Manager if there will be a substantial
agenda on that date?
MR. WYNN: An average agenda, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR MC INNIS: That was going to be my concern
too. That was one of the reasons, in fact, the primary --
the reason -- for originally setting this date for the
hearing on the Traffic Circulation Element, because it is
such an important subject, and we did feel it would take the
whole evening, and if we tried to put that in with a Regular
Council Meeting, then we were going to run into that problem.
COUNCILMAN -- Mr. Mayor, may I offer a
suggestion? Possibly, if we proceed with the taking of
evidence, just like we were going to do, is it apt, then,
to cut the time of that meeting from what it would take if
we had it by itself, so there ...
MAYOR MC INNIS: Yes, it could.
COUNCILMAN -- ... and we have stayed until
early morning hours before, and I belong to -- you know --
I don't mind being a ... (inaudible), so -- --
MAYOR MC INNIS: Okay. Is there any discussion on
12131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. 5ANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 542-2317
0
1
2
3
4
5.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the motion?'
COUNCILMAN -- Call the question.
MAYOR MC INNIS: All those voting?
CITY CLERK: All ayes. Carried.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Okay. The order of business
that we had planned on taking, then we will take off with
in a moment.
First, I am going to call for the representative
of the Alan. M. Voorhees and Associates, our consultant in
the Circulation Plan, to give a summary to the City, and
that's the summary of their findings and conclusions, so,
would the Voorhees Company come forward, please.
MR. KRIER: Mayor Mc Innis, members of the Council,
and ladies and gentlemen, my name is Al Krier. I am
Regional Manager for the Transportation Planning firm of
Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, in San Diego.
I would just like to give a very brief background
for those who may not know how long this study has been
going on, and what it consisted of.
It began back in the latter part of 1971. The
study team consisted of three consultants, but Alan M.
Voorhees and Associates was the prime consultant. The
Behavior Science Corporation did a ... (inaudible), and
Troops Engineering, Incorporated, from Santa Ana, did
mapping and some preliminary cost estimates.
The City technical staff was constantly involved,
1 (213) 437.1327 MACALILEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 17141 542.2317
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and we worked with the Transportation Plans Citizens
Advisory Committee.
It was a three phase study: The first phase was
a study of problem identification, culminating in a report
completed in.5eptember, 1972; the second phase of study was
the development of alternate solutions, that was the Phase
II Report published in March, 1973; and the last phase was
Plan for Action and Implementation, published in October,
1973.
Eventually, it consisted of an evaluation process
and an implementation program.
Now, the evaluation process. In this process,
there is no technique with automatically produces the
best transportation plan.
There are just too many things that go into it.
You just don't dump the data in at one end, turn a crank,
and come out with a plan.
All the features that hold promise or result in
a transportation problem will include, and even the
questionable features that were not entirely excluded.
The plan was based on present probable future land
use in the City of Newport Beach and the surrounding areas,
existing and projected travel corridors, and, of course,
using the framework of the existing street systems.
The evaluation was based on thirteen points, which
was later increased to fourteen points, and it was part of
12131 437•t327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
It
t 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I
the original study design, and it wasn't something that was
thought of in Phase III.
At the top of this list of criteria, the most
important thing, we felt, was the Newport Beach public
acceptance of any of the things that were going to be
suggested to be included in the plan, and this was very
important because without good public support, the project
wouldn't stand a chance of getting off the ground, and the
entire plan would diminish, so we relied very heavily on the
Basico Report -- and the Citizens Advisory Committee input
on public acceptance.
The fourteenth criterion, which I mentioned, the
compatability of planning with other agencies, in some
respects, on some particular projects, this is just as
important as security support in Newport Beach.
It's particular attention Was given especially
to the east -west corridor, namely the Coast'Highway, and
from these evaluations came a plan which most nearly met
the fourteen criteria, and on with the implementation
program is based.
It's called the "Composite Plan" in the handout
which I made during the Summary where there is a plan
attached to that, and that is a plan that appears in the
Phase III Report.
Now, the total cost; of the program that is
outlined in the Report is sixty-eight million dollars,
i
(213) 437•1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. 5ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
12
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
spread over a twenty to twenty-five year period. Of this
amount, twenty-eight million is the responsibility.of the
City of Newport Beach.
Now, of course, there is a key assumption, that
goes along with this implementation program, and that's,
that the revenue is going to keep pace with the increased
cost, and I think already today we can see that perhaps the
revenue is not going to keep pace even with present costs
because with the fuel shortage we're experiencing, since
there are.no other sources of revenue, a prime source of
revenue, gas taxes, is going to diminish, so it is not
likely to keep pate even with the inflationary costs.
The project was classified in the fore of prioriti
which generally coincide with five or six year increments
for programs, so you wduld have between a twenty and twenty-
five year program.
The projects of most immediate need are not too
difficult to classify as to priorities, but the longer you
look into the future, the less priorities mean, and pretty
soon you reach a point where priorities don't mean anything,
so it is wise to concentrate on those projects which you
know have a high priority.
We proceed in Newport Beach on present transportat9
principles. One of them is that the general character of the
City will not change, and, of course, this implies that the
private automobile will continue to be the primary
1213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7141 542.2317
13
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
transportation mode. .
The City's growth policy, and the transportation
system, are going to require constant evaluation, and the
City may choose to reconsider these policy decisions as
i
changes occur.
'Things have been happening already which could
have a significant effect on the plan. of course, the major
one right now is the fuel shortage. We're experiencing
reduced automobile travel, and there are some estimates
that we'll be experiencing, reduced automobile ownership.
Just how far this will go, we don't know at this
time, but it certainly could have substantial effect on the
transportation plan.
As a matter of fact, the result may be that some
street improvements, and highway improvements, will not be
needed at all.
There is a current interest in public transit,
which was not stimulated so much by the energy shortage as
by an interest to provide people with a choice of
transportation, and, of course, hoping that the side effects
would be reduced automobile travel, and I think that Newport
Beach has already benefited very well from orange County
Transit District's very progressive program.
The alternate transit corridor plan'is up for
public hearing soon by the Transit District. That particula
plan which is being looked at very favroably right now
1 4213) A37.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (71A) 542.2317
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
contains a corridor that comes down, essentially, Macarthur
Boulevard, and terminates in the vicinity of Newport Center,
so I think Newport Beach will be very well served.
well all of these things indicate that there should
be a constant vigilance for changing travel habits so that
appropriate actions can be taken.
I only have a couple of more things to say. I
just seems tome like an appropriate time to publicly express
our appreciation to the citizens and to the staff for their
assistance and their guidance in reaching this point of
development in the circulation element of the General Plan.
Secondly, I want to thank all the members personally
of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee.
Strictly, I would like to than Chairman Bill Agee, Mayor
Mc Innis, Mayor Pro-Tem Rogers, and Councilman Store who
spent so many long evenings -- and believe me, there were
many of them that were very, very long -- and some weekends,
I am sure, in community leadership and participation in this
plan.
if questions are appropriate at this time, I would
be glad to answer them.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Do members of the Council have
any questions? Councilman Ryckoff.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: I have a specific one, Mr.
Mayor, if it would be appropriate. Mr. Krier, apparently,
part of your recommendations have to do with Bison Avenue,
I1 '
{2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542•2317
n
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
between Macarthur and Jamboree?
MR. KRIER: Yes.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: Well, the questions that were
raised by the Citizens Environmental Quality Committee, and
also, some residents of the area across Jamboree Road there,
as to a possible impact in that tract as a result of making
Bison a primary road, and I wondered if you had considered
that possibility?
MR. KRIER: As I recall, Bison Avenue is a street
that always on these General Plan of Steets. At this stage
right now, I can't recall if it's a primary or a secondary -
I guess it's a primary -- --
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Primary.
MR. KRIER: The Public Works Director says it's
a primary, and so it's a road that was always on the General
Plan, and I think would be needed for the circulation
element.
Whether it is needed as a primary roadway for a
secondary roadway may be debated, but I think the roadway is
needed.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Are there any questions by the
Council of the Consultant?
COUNCILMAN CROUL: Mr. Mayor, I assume that at our
later meeting he'll be back.
MAYOR MC INNIS: I presume so. Thank you very
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
I
16
I
i
I
I
I
1
I
11
I
I
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
much, Mr. Krier.
MR. KRIER: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ROGERS: Mr. Mayor, I would like to
make a suggestion, as a format for the meeting, as we have
speakers come up, that we take one section at a time, of
the Phase III plan, so that we are not jumping from one end
of town to the other, and living in an era of confusion up
here, but if we could take it segment by segment, starting
from the east end, or from the west end, whichever the
Council prefers.
MAY MC INNIS: It's a good suggestion. We'll plan
on doing that. I would like to call in next the Chairman
of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to
give us a quick overview of the Citizens Committee
responsibilities and historical activities, Bill Agee.
MR. AGEE: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council,
Al Krier sort of went over the history, but I think it was
my assignment tonight to kind of go into a little bit of
the background of the Committee ...
MAYOR MC INNIS: Can you all hear in the back?
(Whereupon, calls of "no" could be
heard.)
MR. AGEE: I'll speak a little louder. I'm sorry.
I was asked to go over the history of our Transportation
Committee, and the responsibilities that we had, just as a
review. I'll attempt to do that briefly, right now.
i
( 213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANC. CAUF. 1714) 342.2317
17
f
It
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
This Transportation Committee was authorized by
the Council in October, 1970. our first meeting took place
in January, 19711 and it was our really first responsibility,
after meeting, to get together and interview the traffic
consultants, and recommend to the Council a consultant that
the Committee felt would be appropriate to carry out the
responsibilities of the study.,
In March of 19721, after some lengthy meetings, we
recommended that Alan M. Voorhees Company be chosen as the
traffic consultant.
In July of 171, we got around to recommending
Phase I to the City Council, which was the first phase of
identifying the problem.
The Committee's responsibility throughout this
entire three phase study, has been to provide public input.
It consisted -- as I know you. on the Council know, but
maybe some people here in the audience don't know -- of
seven representatives from each of the Counciimanic
Districts, and a representative from the Corona del Mar
Chamber of Commerce, and a representative of the Newport
Harbor Chamber of Commerce, as well as two Council
representatives sitting in, in a non -voting role, on the
Committee.
We were to provide as best we could the public
input to the consultant that would•give him input to the
desires of the residents, as he developed a range of
U
(213) 437•1927 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
II
ILI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
'I
technical options, that we discussed.
We had over forty meetings, many of them,very
lengthy, in this three year period, and we got through our
phases -- I guess the second phase began in September of
172 -- completed -report in March of '73, and we got into
the third phase contracts in April of '73, and completed
that final phase in October of '73.
Finally, we had some hearings at the Planning
Commission after we got the consultant's final report and
his final recommendations, and it's now before you this
evening.
Now, Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a few
additional comments.
As you are well aware, this was not an easy job
for the Citizens Committee. Not only was it a lengthy
period of three years to intensive -- -- it's almost the
equivalent of an appointment to a full time commission
that we -- -- short about six months that we attempted to
wrestle with this problem, and we, in spite of this, the
individual participation and attendance was outstanding by
the Committee members, and I would like to publicly thank
them for their dedication and help.
I would like to point out that this Committee,
at different times -- as most committees are -- was
subjected to pressure by a small but fairly determined
segment of our development oriented business community,
0
I
tztal 437.t327, MACAUIEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. t7W 542.8917
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and I guess that's to,be the case, and these special intere:
groups are both in and outside of our community. .
They attempted to sell the Committee, I think, by
some scare tactics, and inflated demand figures, on the
desirability of adopting" massive technical solutions to our
traffic problems, and I think this was without any
consideration given to the residents, which they seem to
term as "pressure groups."
Not the least of these pressures, I'm afraid,
came from the constant barrage of editorials from our
friendly Costa Mesa newspaper, trying to tell the Committee
and the residents of Newport Beach what was best for them.
you will remember,'I'm sure, that it was this
same newspaper that told us to vote for the Pacific Coast
Freeway, and the residents didn't listen to them, thank
heavens, and naturally, voted six -to -one against that
Freeway.
The consultant did an outstanding job in finding
traffic solutions that are in harmony with the City goals
of preservation of the quality of life as we now enjoy it,
and I would like to read a portion of a letter that he sent
on December third of 1973 to Mr. Robert Wynn.
This is from Marty Baumann, the Vice -President
of Alan Voorhees Company. It is a paragraph:
11As in any study of this type, there
will be some criticism in the planning and
1 (213) 437.1327 MACAULEY a MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALF. (714) 542.2317
w
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
development of any arterial street system.
There are bound to be some individuals who
will be dislocated, or who will suffer some
form of real or imagined hardship. These
people,can and should be heard from.
The Fifty Avenue alignment through
Corona del Mar is a good case in point. We
consider community acceptance to be a
serious, technical consideration, and as we
stated in our original proposal, which
became part of the contract, 'a reasonable
solution will be one which can accommodate
present and future traffic demands, create
minimum environmental disturbance, and have
an anticipated public acceptance'."
Finally, I think it is to the consultant's credit
that in'spite of all the outside pressures, and even though
the consultant was most qualified and most capable of
understanding the ramifications of the technical efficienci
of bigger roads and massive interchanges, he chose, in his
final recommendations, to carry out the difficult task
assigned him.by the City.
He came up with technical solutions that both had
minimal environmental impact and a public acceptance by
residents.
He,proved that our Committee and Council had
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I
chosen wisely, because even in the most controversial
sections of this report, he listened to the residents of
this community -and not to the special interest groups.
This was amply demonstrated when he rejected an
ugly high-rise interchange at Macarthur and Pacific Coast
Highway, and when he also rejected a mini -freeway through
the Fifty Avenue corridor in Corona del Mar.
I hope you gentlemen agree with this report.
Thank you. (Applause)
MAYOR MC INNIS: (Banging gavel to restore order)
That is not allowed. We won't have any more of that,
please!
COUNCILAN CROUL: Mr. Mayor, will Mr. Agee appear
at our next meeting?
MAYOR MC INNIS: I am sure Mr. Agree will be here
at the next meeting.
COUNCILMAN CROUL: Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: The next item on the agenda is
a Report from the Community Development Department, to
present a broad overview of the Planning Commission's
review and conclusions of the circulation element.
MR. ROGERS: Mr. Mayor, I would like to state at
the outset that Mr. Rod Gunn, from my Department, has
participated very heavily in the preparation of the report
for presentation to the Commission and to getting it ready
for presentation to the Council tonight.
(2I3) 437-I327 ' MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7I4) 54e-2317
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
We have two maps, on each side of the room -- we
have one map,on each side of the room. These two maps are
the same. Soo the one that is closest to you is exactly the
same as the map on the other side.
We have designated certain portions of this map
by number because these are important segments of the
circulation element which the Councilor members of the
audience may wish to discuss in particular.
I would like to quickly go through our transmittal
letter to the Council, and the plan as it was transmitted to
the Council, so that those in the audience that do riot have
a copy can -at least have the highlights -of what has been
transmitted and what is being done.
The Planning Commission had three public hearings
on the General Plan -- on the particular element of the
General Plan, and they largely agreed with the report as it
was prepared and presented by the Citizens Advisory Committe
and as it had been prepared by the consultant.
There were eight changes that were made by the
Planning Commission, which are outlined in our letter of
transmittal, and three modifications to the report, as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
The proposed relocation of Pacific Coast Highway,
and the relocation of Corona del Mar freeway, and the
extension of Seventeenth Street, have potential effects on
the cities adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, and it wi:
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY a MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
require further coordination with those cities, and with
the County, and we have received a letter from the County
Road Department indicating their desire for cooperation
with the City, and further coordination on those and some
other portions of the plan.
other transient and parking facilities have not
been included as a part of this circulation element, but it
is the opinion of the staff that the scope of the circulatio
element should include recommendations for other types Of
transportation facilities, such as public transit.
2t is the intent of the staff to come back to the
Planning Commission and the City Council at a later date
with recommendations for an amendment to the circulation
element to include public transit and parking facilities.
An environmental impact report has not as yet been
prepared by the staff. it is in the process of preparation,
however, and it will be forwarded to the Planning Commission
at their meeting on March the seventh.
Therefore, if the City Council chooses to adopt the
circulation element, as submitted by the Planning Commission,
any approval should be conditioned, subject to the approval
of an environmental impact report.
Now, to go through the plan very quickly, and to
highlight some of the things that are included, we would
like to point out that the consultant's report is the basic
source document to the circulation element, and should be
12131 437.1327 MAGAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
24
1'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
referred to for.the various alternatives that were
in developingvthis report.
The final recommendations contained within the
Phase III Report by the consultant represent the best
technical solutions that he felt would receive the necessary
public support for implementation.
The key to the solution of the traffic problems
in Newport Beach is the development of a major bypass route
around the City so that through traffic does not use the
Coast Highway traffic corridor.
A corollary policy to the development of a major
bypass route is the development of a series of major
arterials in a north -south direction for people and vehicles
with a specific destination within Newport Beach.
As you will notice on the map, there is a
classification of road systems that is shown in the legend
on the upper left hand corner.
Included in the road systems are such things as
the "major road" which is a six -lane divided road; "primary
road" which is a four -lane divided road; "primary road
modified" -- this applies to a couple of segments on Coast
Highway, and the modification means that the road may be
widened at heavily traveled times by the removal of parking
from the streets -- this is on two segments of the Coast
Highway; then, the "secondary road" which is four -lane
undivided, and we've shown, by the dotted line, the routes
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542-2317
i
25
II
I
1
1
I
I
I
r
V
LI
V
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
that require further coordination, as I mentioned earlier,
with other cities, and with the County.
And to supplement that a little further, the
City -- and impress you with its need -- the City of Newport
Beach participates in the orange County Arterial Highway
Financing Program, in which the County assumes up to fifty
per cent for 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 plan for the County and all the
adjacent cities.
To go through some of these specific proposals
and highlight them, the Corona del Mar freeway project
provides for the construction and continuation of the
Corona del Mar freeway downcoast through the Bonita Coyote
Canyon -- Rod, if you will show that on the map.
The importance of the construction of the Corona
del Mar freeway on this particular alignment, and continuing
down coast, can not be overstressed. This is a major
bypass route that was mentioned earlier.
The Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and
Newport Boulevard: Now, to move down, to Coast Highway,
and number two, this is a new route which swings around
Newport Shores, and the interchanges with a route which
connects to the Newport freeway alignment, so it's a
I
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
relocation -of the present Coast Highway in that particular
area.
The interchange at Newport Boulevard and Coast.
Highway provides for'the-construction of a single structure
for the interchange, and no specific geometrics are suggestel
at this time.
The Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport
Boulevard includes additional street improvements, improved
signalization, and additional off-street parking.
Time controlled off-street parking, if necessary,
will be limited to two one -hour peaks, and instituted only
when adequate off-street parking is available. This is the
one that I mentioned earlier as the "Primary Road Modified."
The Coast Highway from the Upper Bay Bridge to
Dover Drive: It includes the construction of a bridge on
Coast Highway across the way to replace the existing bridge,
which is not only deficient in capacity as all .of you know,
but has become structurally deficient.
The bridge, which will also be low profile, will
permit most•trailerable vessels to pass under. It would
interchange with Dover Drive, at that particular location,
in accordance with the recommended plan.
The plan includes the widening of Dover Drive to
provide two left -turning lanes from Coast Highway to Dover
Drive.
The bridge would essentially be eight lanes, six
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7141 542-2317
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
lanes. of which would provide for a relatively free flow of
traffic; the additional width being for other facilities.
No traffic efficiency is projected with this
design. These improvements would eliminate what is consider
to be the most heavily congested section in the City of
Newport Beach.
The Coast Highway between Jamboree Road and the
Upper Bay Bridge: This improvement provides for widening
Coast Highway to six lanes, from Jamboree Road to the
proposed Upper Bay bridge replacement.
The Coast Highway from Macarthur-to Jamboree
Road: This project is the widening of Coast Highway to
six lanes from Macarthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road.
In addition, the proposals for this section
include an interchange at Coast Highway and Macarthur.
This, by the way, was one of the most controversial of
elements before the Planning Commission, and there was much
discussion of this.
However, the interchange is assigned a little
priority in order to be able to assess to what extent
other improvements might relieve any traffic congestion
before implementation.
Also, as an alternate to the interchange, a
one-way couplet on Macarthur and Avocado, between Coast
Highway and San Joaquim Road, is to be given further study.
The staff will be working on this for a report
1213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)- 542.2317
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
back to the Planning Commission as soon as the work can be
instituted.
Coast Highway from Macarthur to Corona del Mar:
This segment of Coast Highway, from Macarthur Boulevard
through Corona del Mar, includes proposals for additional
street improvement, improved signalization, and additional
off-street parking; time controlled on -street parking, if
necessary, will be limited to two one -hour peaks, and
instituted only when adequate off-street parking is -
available.
I would like to skip,•now, through the section
of the report, to item eleven, which is Dover Drive, from
Westcliff to Coast Highway.
This project provides for the widening of Dover
Drive from Westcliff Drive to Coast Highway. This project,
on the existing alignment, will improve this section to
full major roadway status, and compliment the improvements
being made at Dover Drive and the Coast Highway.
It is also felt that it will eliminate the need
for a second bridge.
San Joaquin Hills Road, item sixteen: This
project is 'the widening of San Joaquin Hills Road from
State Road 73 to Spyglass Hill Road to a full six -lane
major highway.
All the necessary right of way is available.
Further extension to the east will depend on how and when
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY 8t MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) S42.2317
29
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the area develops, and we are working in coordination with
the other surrounding cities, and with the Coastal Commissio.
and with the Irvine Company, on a plan for the downcoat area
which is, of course, immediately.adjacent, and with which
this particular road alignment would connect.
University Drive: This project is the constructio
of University Drive from Tustin Avenue to the Corona del Mar
freeway to link the section of University Drive east of
State Route 73 in the City of Irvine, an extremely important
roadway also, which has high priority, and which the Council
is completely familiar with,
Implementation of the plan, as shown in the
following sections, says that "routes shown on this report
which are not on existing alignments show general rather
than exact locations," so, in the discussing of any new
routes here, it should be realized that thes are general
locations, and that the specifid locations will be determine
at later dates.
Project priorities: of immediate importance in
the implementation of the plan are questions of what to
build first, and what should follow.
Available and committed financing is always a
key factor. Availability of engineering studies, land use
development programs, traffic needs, and systems continuity,
must all be ponsidered.
In view of traffic needs, public interest, and
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
investigative work already done, projects of most immediate
need are not too difficult to classify.
The projects were classified into categories
"A", "B"I "C" and "D11, and are arranged that way in Table
Four at the back,of the report.
Classification of "Ail is the highest priority and
most immediate concern, while Classification "D11 represents
those projects not likely necessary for many years.
While those projects classified "A" may be the
most important, it may not be possible or practical to
obtain all of them ahead of some project having classificati r
111V1, because of funding that may be available from other
sources, or because the engineering studies may.have been
completed, or the roadways may be available, or some other
reason of that kind.
It would be quite coincidental if the available
revenue for street ,construction matched the needs.
Historically, there are seldom areas where the needed
program for it could be obtained when desired, and I'm sure
the Council is well aware that we're going to have
substantial problems in the financing of the road system,
and the Council may desire to direct the staff to do further
studies similar to those that were done in connection with
the park plan, where the need for not only the work in
buying and developing the street system, but the work in
maintaining it, would be considered, and the cost of that
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 4114) 542.2317
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
maintenance and the staff that's going to be needed for
that purpose.
Mr. Mayor, I believe that covers the plan, in
general, unless the Council has some questions.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Do members of the Council have
any questions? (No response to the question)
Okay. In accordance, then, with the suggestion
made earlier by Vice -Mayor Rogers, we'll open the hearing
up to -- we'll open the meeting up to discussion by the
public, Vice -Mayor Roger's suggestion was that we take the
testimony you wish to give, the remarks you wish to make,
by the geographical area.
That's the purpose'of these two maps, one on each
side. We're starting with number one. Let's work our way
through from one to eight, then. Anybody who wishes to
speak, then, to section one, or geographical area one, plea;
come forward and give your name and your address, and hold
your remarks to five minutes unless otherwise authorized by
the Council.
MRS. BERNATZ: My name is Joan Bernatz. I reside
at 1945 Teresita Lane, Newport Beach. I represent the
League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and actually, what
I have to say embodies the entire section, everything.
I am before you tonight to urge your acceptance
of the Newport Beach Traffic Study. The report seems to
discuss the problems quite thoroughly, basing its conclusio
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714$ 542.2317
11
32
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
on a broad set of criteria.
I would like to comment briefly on -some of the
recommendations concerning the role of public transit. Our
League supports the position that a feasible alternative to
the excessive use of the automobile should be provided in
Orange County.
Nowhere is that need more apparent than in Newport
Beach, where high land values, the recreational nature of
the community, and geography, combine to further complicate
traffic congestion and parking problems.
Therefore, we are encouraged to see that separate
facilities for public transit, such as special bus lanes,
have been included in some of the new road construction
proposals.
We would like to see these public transit needs
considered for all future road planning.
We would also encourage close coordination and
planning, with the Orange County Transit District, so that
facilities in Newport Beach can accommodate future public
transit.
Our League also supports and encourages citizen
participation in all levels of the planning process. We
are pleased that there was citizen involvement in the
formulation of this study.
We are encouraged that the consultant has
recommended a specific program of continued plan updating
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and surveillance to deal with conditions which were
unforeseen during the developlment of this plan.
To this end, we would encourage the formation of
a Citizens Transportation Committee, to guaranty that the
public's involvement continues. We feel the ongoing
planning process must be open to public review at all times.
An example of the need for this review is the
change in the energy picture, which has become so much
more apparent in the few months since this report was
completed; so much so that the findings here which.give
greater weight to the automobile over public transit may
have changed a great deal.
Finally, I would like to comment on priorities and
timetables. The most urgent construction priorities given
in the study are those to be completed within the next
five years.
Some of the problems that are here now can be
solved in a shorter period than that with strong leadership
on your part.
We urge you to consider the findings in the
traffic study, including those supporting public transit,
and take action now, in 1974, that will help solve those
problems.
Thank you very much.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you. Does anybody else
wish to be heard?
12131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8',
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. MC KERREN: Mr. Mayor and members of the City
Council, my name is John Mc Kerren. I live at 2520 Cliff
Drive.
The circulation element contains many worthwhile
and valuable proposals, and certainly reflects the considerable
time that was spent in putting it together by all members
concerned.
The specific proposals, item number one, certainly
touches upon several items that are included. However, I
shall confine my remarks merely to number ones and what I
feel is a direct line between it and one other segment.
I believe the Planning Commission is to be
commended for recognizing that the key to the traffic
problem in Newport Beach is in the development of a major
bypass route.
This is a technical solution compatible with
good people solutions.
I heartily agree that the importance of this
alignment, and continuation downcoast, can not be
overstressed.
It is not only as is stated in the element, an
attractive alternative which would divert an estimated
fifteen thousand vehicles per day away from the Coast
Highway corridor, but it is essential as a through traffic
mover, and it is also essential to the ultimate elimination
of Route 73 as a state -adopted route for the extension of
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the Corona del mar freeway.
This brings me to a prime point I wish to make,
specific proposal number seven, the widening of Coast
Highway to six lanes from Macarthur to Jamboree Road, has
in addition, specifically stated by the Planning Commission,
an interchange at Coast Highway and Macarthur,, an interchang
with no further description or modification to indicate that
this should be a minimal structure sufficient to handle
local traffic only, for any other description, for that
matter. It just reads an interchange.
What got tossed out to make it more palatable is
that it had a "D" priority tacked on the end of an "A"
priority project.
Several days ago I talked with 'the gentleman in
the Alan Voorhees and Associates office in San Diego -- I
believe his name was Mr. Fettercamp. I asked for, and.got
his definition of an interchange.
He defines it as, "A grade separation with ramp."
The Drafting and Plans Manual, used by the State of Califorr
Department of Transportation, discusses interchanges and
intersections at grade, and have several definitions:
"Interchange -- A system of inter -connecting
roadways, in conjunction with a grade separation, or grade
separations, providing for the interchange of traffic betwe(
two or more roadways on different levels."
They go on, then, to discuss what the elements of
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. )714) 542.2317
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
that interchange are. The elements are three:
A Branch Connection -- a multi -lane
connection between two freeways, a freeway -to -freeway
connection, a single or multi -lane connection between
freeways.
Ramp is a connecting roadway between a
freeway, or expressway, and another highway road or roadside
area.
Each definition, as provided in the Drafting and
Plans Manual, is specific, in the State of California, that
it must connect to a freeway.
Gentlemen, I submit that reference to an intercha
in the circulation element, recommended at the intersection
of two state highways, must bear the definition of the
Transportation Department, and therefore be branded as a
structure intended to be connected with either freeways or
expressways.
Such a structure appears to be just exactly what
it describes, and forbidden in Section 422 of the City
Charter.
We seem to have a specter of freeway popping in
continually. I don't know why this gratuitous exchange, or
interchange, was passed on to the recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
It didn't seem to leave an option open. It rather
seemed to pin it down to that development, rather than to th
(213( 437•1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
37
1
2
3
4
5.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
alternatives.
The'interchange proposed will be nothing less, in
my opinion, than, if you will excuse the expression, a
bridegroom waiting at the altar for the bride freeway; not
whether it arrives from the east, or the west, or the north,
is really of not too much concern.
I would like it not to arrive at all, and I believe
that we can forever put the specter of freeways to rest if
we can get some better definition of the terms that were
used in the circulation element.
I strongly urge the Council to eliminate .the
reference to a flat interchange, per se, from the circulatior
element, and be suspect of its use in the other areas on
specific proposals.
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. (Applause)
(Banging gavel to restore order) Please, don't do that. It
is difficult enough to get through a meeting of this size
and complexity without having that sort of interruption.
All it does, you know, is take more time.
Do you have a question?
COUNCIL14AN DOSTAL: Yes, I have a question of Mr.
Devlin. The point that was just made seems ... (inaudible)
Is there any other term that can be used other than
interchange, because I don't think there's any intent to
have any freeway in that particular area?
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
COUNCILMAN ROGERS: Mr. Mayor, if I could interr
at this point. we're moving down to a segment other than
segment one. I think, to keep from jumping around, we sho
hold to segment one.
I'm sure we're going to get a lot of information
on the four-letter interchange at a later time.
COUNCILMAN DOSTAL: All right, I'll defer the
question.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Can you defer the question for
the moment, Councilman?
COUNCILMAN DOSTAL: I will.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Does anybody else wish to be
heard on segment one, in order -- area one, on the map.
(No response to the question)
Apparently not, and if not, then, we will move
over, then, to area two on the map, which is on the westerly
side of town. Does anybody wish to be heard on that section?
(No response to the question)
Okay, then we'll move to area three on the map.
Rod, would you point that out again? Does anybody wish to
be heard on area three?
MR. ARTHUR: My name is David Arthur. I reside
•at 411 Vista Roma, Newport Beach.
I recommend that the wording of the specific
proposal number three be changed from, "Provisions for
bicycles and pedestrians in transit are contemplated," to
1213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
39
1;
the way it is worded in, I believe, proposal number seven --
2 yes -- "Pedestrian,.bicycle, and transit facilities are part
3 of the construction."
4 As anyone who rides a bicycle in that area knows,
5 the bridge across the Coast Highway on Newport Boulevard is
6 very narrow, and is very dangerous for any bicyclist, and
7 also, there are no crosswalk provisions for pedestrians
8 across the access ramps from interchanging Newport Boulevard
9 and Coast Highway.
10 Therefore, I recommend that you consider changing
11 the wording to specifically include provisions for bicyclists
12 and pedestrians on that interchange.
13 Thank you.
14 MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. That's a
15 very astute observation.
16 Anybody else wish to be heard on segment three?
17 (No response to the question)
18 If not, we'll move on to segment four. Does
19 anybody wish to be heard on that segment? (No response to
20 the question)
21 If not, we'll move on to number five, Does anybody
22 want to be heard on that section? (No response to the
23 question) Apparently not.
24 We'll move on to number six. Does anybody wish to
25 be heard on segment six? (No response to the question)
26 We now arrive at segment seven. Does anybody wish
4213) 437.1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. 5ANTA ANA. CALIF. t7141 542-2317
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
to be heard on segment seven? (No response to the question)
Okay. We're now at number eight. Don't everybody
come up at once. (Laughter)
,
MR. WEINBERGER: Before the time starts, Mr. Mayor,
may I get a clarification? In view of the unfortunate
procedural problem, do we have your assurance that the
evidence introduced tonight will be completed in the same
light as if it were introduced at the next official meeting?
MAYOR MC INNIS: Yes, sir. You certainly do.
MR. WEINBERGER: Thank you. My name is Norman M.
Weinberger. I reside at 958 Sandcastle, Corona del Mar.
Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I have the
deep honor to present to you•a petition from the citizens
and the merchants of Corona del Mar:
"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 business men
of greater Corona del Mar desire to protect
and retain the unique character and quality
of their community, and
Whereas the residents and business men
of greater Corona del Mar desire the
protection of the general health, safety and
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) E42.2317
41
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
environment,
Therefore, we, the undersigned residents
and business men of greater Corona del Mar do
hereby join in this petition.
Number one, we oppose the use of any
portion of the proposed Pacific Coast Highway
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.
Number two, we support the completion
of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Pacific
Coast Highway through Bonita Canyon as a
bypass for through traffic.
Number three, we support that there be
provisions for ample off-street parking at
Corona del Mar tied to any limitation of
parking on the Pacific Coast Highway, and
the retention of necessary left turns."
We forwarded, to the Council, on the letter of
November twelfth, which I will now take the time to read,
but I presume it will be part of the official record since
it's included with this petition.
The petition I just read to you bears a total of
four thousand five hundred and thirty-one signatures. Eight
0
f213) 437•1327 ,MACAULEY Oa MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) $42.2317
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
hundred and sixty signatures are from Newport Beach
residents who reside in fringe areas of Corona del Mar, such
as the Harbor View Homes area.
Of the four thousand five hundred and thirty-one
signatures, fifty-six signatures are those of Corona del Mar
merchants.
A separate petition, bearing a total of approximate
two hundred and thirty-four signatures, of which one hundred
and thirty=four are merchants, will be presented later.
Now, just one additional comment, at this time.
It's very clear that, if necessary, additional signatures
could be obtained.
We did not attempt to obtain signatures from
residents or business men outside of Corona del Mar, but
people who were in the neighborhood, or who knew about the
petition, wanted to sign it. That's number one.
Number two, is that it must be understood clearly
that the opposition to the expressway, and the other aspects
of this, is simply not limited to the residents and merchant
of Corona del Mar.
You have, of course, a record of the freeway vote.
You also have a record of the Basico study, which was part
of the traffic consultant's report.
That's being called and understood that that
Basico study was a stratified sample across the entire City
of Newport Beach, and in that sample, the Fifth Avenue, or
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. t7t4t 542.2317
(I
43
1'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
parallel road to Coast Highway receive the absolute lowest
recommendation.
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much.
MR. SERBER: Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Hi, John.
I'm Russell Serber. I'm president of the Cameo Community
Association. I reside at 4521 Wayne Road, which is Cameo
Highlands.
I would hope that in speaking for that group, you
might allow a few minutes leeway in case I run over.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Are you asking for eight minutes?
I
MR. SERBER: Well, generally I'm pretty swift on
my feet, but -- --
MAYOR MC INNIS: I'll move for eight minutes.
MR. SERBER: Thank you very much.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Is there any discussion on the
motion., before voting? (No response to the question) You
have eight minutes.
MR. SERBER: Thank you, sir. Just generally, to
inform the Council, and those people present here, of our
position concerning this situations we, the Cameo Community
Association, have consistently opposed a freeway through
Corona del Mar, and, I think, starting late in May, and I
trust you all received a copy of the resolution that was
passed by our general meeting which was attended approximate
by eighty per cent of our members, and we do comprise three
I12131 437.1327 MACAUI_EY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
hundred .and twenty-one homes, and about fourteen hundred
residents, of Corona del Mar; and that is the Very end of
Corona del Mar, we opposed any change for the purposes of
traffic, any change at all occurring upon the Coast Highway,
at least through,Corona del Mar, over to the area which we
are interested in.
on June 5, 1973, we sent a similar letter, with
our resolution attached, to the Citizens Traffic Advisory
Committee, and on January 15, 1974, a letter was mailed to
each of the Councilmen, and to other interested parties,
again setting forth our position.
It was our understanding through this entire period
of time that we had a choice between a freeway which ran
down Bonita Canyon, and a change in Corona del Mar -Pacific
Coast Highway, turning Pacific Coast Highway into a six -lane
road.
At this point, and as -far as the recommendation
goes, we have no way of knowing what additional street
improvements, to quote from the report, means, or what
improved signalization means.
As far as we know, this might mean an additional
two lanes going each way through Corona del Mar. As we
understand our geography, our only ingress and egress to
our neighborhood is off of Pacific Coast Highway.
In reference to the Fifth Avenue bypass, or
extension, or whatever you wish to call it, I would indicate
12131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. {7W 542-2317
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
that the Cameo Community Association is in favor of that
only if "push comes to shove,'' and we only have a choice
between Fifth Avenue and Coast Highway being turned into
six lanes, or a no parking situation at any time.
We have plenty of pedestrian traffic, and plenty
of bicycle traffic out of our neighborhood.
As far as the citizens' input, I do know for a
fact that our Association was never asked for any input,
although we gave him some, but none was solicited, so I
don't know to what extent the Advisory report represents a
cross section of the community feeling.
I also know, for a fact, that Shorecliffs is.
opposed to any alteration at all on Coast Highway, and is in
favor of the Fifth Avenue extension, if push comes to shove,
and I think that Irvine Terrace feels about the same way.
The fact that has been overlooked, I think, is
perhaps that of public safety vehicles. At the present time,
and on a weekend -- any time the sun is out, we have a
situation with fire trucks and police trucks being unable --
police cars being unable -- to traverse Coast Highway through.
Corona del Mar, and certainly the helicopter, which is fine
for watching, is no good for putting out fires, or giving
resuscitative care.
The direct affect upon our Association, and our
homes, by a six -lane freeway, or tunring Coast Highway into
six lanes, would be immense, and this public input that went
�'', 1
1213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1714I 542.2317
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
into the Coast Highway, the citizens' recommendation, I do
not think is based upon the fact that the Fifth Avenue
situation was every publicized to the extent that anyone.ever
knew just exactly what Fifth Avenue was going to entail, and
the real or imagined hardship that might occur from that,
and the community acceptance, I think, has been sorely
mislabeled.
There's no doubt -- and don't get me wrong, I'm
not speaking in favor of Fifth Avenue; we'd just as soon
not see it happen either -- but we would rather see that
happen than any change occur in Coast Highway, and I think
the community acceptance has been misinterpreted, because
I don't think people who would be.affected by. Fifth Avenue
directly, or by the change in Coast Highway, have been
asked.
At this particular time, and I don't know how
closely this entire situation is tied in with the flounderi
Bonita Canyon Freeway, but should Bonita Canyon continue to
flounder in the manner in which it is, there will be
absolutely no change in Coast Highway, the traffic can only
be worse because, as the ads for Santa Barbara say, we also
are only a half a tank of gas away from Los Angeles, and
this is where the tourists come, they come down the coast.
In reference to the statements made earlier, and
in reference to the petition that's been presented, I know
that at one time we were asked, at our board meeting, to
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
L
47
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
sign a petition.
I can only say that if the pitch given to obtain
signatures on the petition was similar to the one that we
received at our board meeting, it could only have been
misleading, and not fully stating all of the facts involved,
because I think people sign those petitions thinking that
that was the cure-all for the whole situation, when, in
fact, I think the perpertrators of the petition were merely
attempting, out of their own self-interest, or whatever
interest they may have, to completely and finally bury Fifth
Avenue..
I'think Fifth Avenue should still -remain as one
of the viable solutions- It's the best technical one, and
I think that the public opinion in reference to Fifth
Avenue is far different than what has been presented by the
Traffic Advisory Board, or by the statements Contained in
the circulation element of the Newport Beach General Plan,
which was distributed tonight.
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNES: Thank you very much.
MR. CALDERHEAD: I'm Wallace Calderhead, and I
live at 712 Iris Street, Corona del Mar.
I'm awfully sorry to hear that eighty-five per
cent of the people that voted against Fifth Avenue aren't
very intelligent.
I have a petition with one hundred and thirty-four
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY a MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
Fin
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
signatures of the 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.
Gentlemen, I'm proud to say that I am one of the
original freeholder -members who originally took part in the
incorporation of the City of Newport Beach, and also, that
I was a merchant on Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, for over
twenty-two years, now retired.
I am forwarding, with this letter, a petition of
two hundred and thirty-four signatures of both Corona del
Mar merchants and residents. There are one hundred and
thirty-four signatures.of merchants, and a hundred signatures
of residents.
This petition is identical to the Corona del Mar
Citizens Petition Committee that has four thousand five
hundred and thirty-one signatures, in all respects, except
item number three of the petition.
Item number three in this group of petitions
differs only by supporting continuation of the present
traffic flow and parking arrangements on the Coast Highway
in Corona del Mar.
Therefore, this petition, that was signed by a
hundred and thirty-four merchants, plus the larger petition
that was signed by fifty-six merchants, totals one hundred
and ninety merchants opposing the use of Fifth Avenue, and
supports the use of Bonita Canyon as the bypass route for
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
',
through traffic.
It should also be pointed out that Mr. Richard
Strickler and Miss Chris Hopper petition also supports the
bypass, but it does not support the use of Fifth Avenue by
name.
Therefore, their petition could also be considered.
to support -Bonita Canyon and not necessarily Fifth Avenue,
and that point explains why some merchants signed both
petitions.
states:
The wording of the petition I just spoke about
"We, the undersigned merchants of
Corona del Mar, are opposed to removing
the parking from Coast Highway in Corona
del Mar. We feel there should be a bypass
route."
Now, I just made a survey, this week. I counted
the off-street parking spaces provided by far-sighted Corona
del Mar business men.
Within one block of either side of Coast Highway --
between Macarthur and Buck Gully;-- there are one thousand
five hundred and seventy-seven asphalt surfaced parking
spaces.
These are closer to established businesses than
the parking in Fashion Island.
By better alignment, more spaces could be used,
I
4213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
I
411
I
I
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,
23
24
25
26
should necessity require it.
I would like to compliment the City Council for
their appointing a Parking Committee, headed by Councilmen
Rogers, Store and Croul, to study ways of providing even
additional parking for the merchants of Corona des. Mar,
which they are entitled to.
Our petitions oppose any restriction of parking on
Coast Highway..
The voters' mandate not to build a Fifth Avenue
freeway or expressway, should be respected and accepted,
and show Bonita Canyon as the only bypass with public
support.
No bypass, overpass, at Macarthur and Coast
Highway. Macarthur is too steep already, and has been a
continual source of accidents.
To further lower the grade to pass under Coast
Highway is unthinkable.
The action. of the Planning Commission seems more
an act of petulance than good city planning, particularly
when they have so little faith in their action, they were
given a "D" priority after passage.
This overpass makes no provision:for southbound
traffic on Coast Highway wishing to go north on Macarthur,
which would require another overpass.
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS-. Thank you very much. Next
1
(213) 437•1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SAND ANA. CALIF. 47141 542.2317
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
speaker, please.
MR. STEFFENSEN: Mr name is J. Leslie Steffensen.
I live at 735 Cameo Highlands Drive.
Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council., I have a
little interest on this. The Fifth Avenue cut-off runs by
John Store's house, Mr. Agee's house, and my house, but I
also drive up and'down the Coast Highway.
I really don't know which way, or where it should
go, as a long time resident of this area, but I did attend
the meeting, i listened to the engineer's report and he
said this is strongly weighted to public acceptance, so
then I left; and then Z got, because I was also at a
Planning Committee, and the Planning Committee was thoroughly
weighted for freeway figthers, so then I left that one; and
I went to Planning Commission, and they said this is
strongly weighted, and the Chairman of the Planning
Commission also lives on the street that we live on and
John Store lives on.
So I really don't know which way it ought to go,
but I think this Council is a firm believer in representative
government, and we're not representing just a hundred people
here, or a few people on Fifth Avenue, we're representing
fifty-three thousand people, and twenty or thirty.thousand
people, whether we like it or not, that will be here within
the next ten years, and I think that this Council would be
in good stead if they had an engineering report that was
I. (213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. t7141 542.2317
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
heavily weighted to sound engineering practices, rather than
weighted to public acceptance, and then, I think, I'm sure
the people in this town, if we had a sound engineering repot
.and you tell'us what was going to happen, and what would
happen if we do or don't do, then I think we'd know what we
were going to do, but I don't think we can do by emotion,
I don't think we can stand here and say we don't want a
street to go by my house, or John's house over there, or
Agee's house, or Hopper's house, or whether we want to do
something on the street, but I think this is important
enough in our community that we really need a real sound
engineering report on what will or will not happen, and when
it comes to public acceptance, I don't know anybody that
knows better about public acceptance than the City Council,
I don't think you have to hire an engineering firm to tell
you about public acceptance, so I hope you will take this
under study and give it a real thorough study, and then I
think we, the people, of this town, if you give us the
facts, we'll accept the facts.
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Does anybody have any questions?
Councilman Store.
COUNCILMAN STORE: Les, do you remember, over the
last three or four years, since we had a meeting in the
public chambers, that I had reminded you of a statement that
you made that night, when we voted, or the Council voted, on
4213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 542.2317
G
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
r
the potential interchanges?
Do you recall that I had reminded you of that
statement off and on?
MR. STEFFENSEN: I erased the tape.
COUNCILMAN STORE: Pardon?
MR. STEFFENSEN: I erased the tape. (Laughter)
What did you remind me of, John?
COUNCILMAN STORE: Your statement was, as you left
that microphone, "I don't see why we need that freeway i
anyway," and'i reminded you of that several times. Do you
remember that?
MR. STEFFENSEN: I've been wrong lots of times.
COUNCILMAN STORE: .Okay.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you. Does anybody else ...
MR. STEFFENSEN: I have no comment other than I
have a high regard for this City Council, and I have high
regard for the City that we r- the engineering.staff.--
and to make a decision without really sound engineering and
not weighted -- I don't like to see it weighted -- the
public -- nobody asked me.
I live on Fifth Street. Nobody asked anybody on
my street, that I know of. I don't know where that weight
of public opinion came from, but -- I just don't know.
I have a lot of confidence in this City, and the
City Council here, and I'm sure you wouldn't do anything
until you knew exactly what's going to happento "we the
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 4714) 542-2317
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
26
people" a long time from here on out.
Thank you, gentlemen. John, I don't remember that.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Next speaker, please.
MR. STOESSEL: My name is Bob Stoessel. I reside
at 321 Poinsettia. I'm representing the Corona del Mar
Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council, we, as the
Corona del Mar Chamber, did submit a letter to you on
February fifteenth, of this year.
I do not believe it is necessary to read this into
the record, am I correct?
MAYOR MC INNIS: You're correct. It becomes part
of the record, as you submitted it.
MR. STOESSEL: I would, therefore, just like to
comment on a couple of items which might have caused us to
amend this letter slightly.
In paragraph seven, item seven, Coast Highway
from Macarthur to Jamboree Road, we were not aware of the
fact that there was an alternate intechange, namely a one-
way couplet on Macarthur and Avocado, between Coast Highway
and San Joaquin Hills Road.
In looking at this paragraph, this evening, which
is the first time I have had an opportunity to see it, it
would seem to me that what was listed as an alternate
should have been the main element, with the interchange
considered as an extremely low priority alternate, rather
U
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) $42.2317
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
than saying, "the proposal includes the interchange."
Having know that, we would have stressed this in
our letter to you.
In paragraph eight, Coast Highway from Macarthur
through Corona del Mar, we're just a little bit concerned. --
first of all, we like the general tone -- but we're a little
bit concerned with what is meant by "adequate off-street
parking," and what would happen if someone were to decide
that a one -hour peak was insufficient, and that it would be
two hours of no parking during peark periods, or three, or
four, what guarantys would there be that it would, in fact,
strictly be limited to one hour?
These are the only two items that I have felt
that I should mention at this point in time. I think the
report is an excellent report, and well thought out, and we
are in favor with the general concept and hope that it is
implemented.
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. Next
speaker, please.
MR. GERING: Michael Gering, 1350.Sussex Lane,
representing the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce.
Initially, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City
Council, I would like to apologize for the late preparation
and delivery of the letter to the Council, that I delivered
this evening.
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 47141 542.2317
56
I'
1
1
1
1
If
I,
1
1
U
II
II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In light of that late delivery, and the fact that
I am aware that the Council did not have an opportunity to
review it, and for purposes of putting it on the record and
letting the public know exactly how the Chamber stands, I
would like to read that letter to you at this time:
"The Honorable Mayor and Members of
the City Council, City of Newport Beach.
Gentlemen: The Newport Harbor Chamber
of Commerce wishes to take this opportunity
to reiterate its position recommending the
Fifth Avenue Bypass as a solution to the
continually increasing traffic deficiency
on Pacific Coast Highway -with Corona del
Mar and downcoast.
Our position is based upon information
provided us by Mr. Robert Milum, our
representative to the Citizens Advisory
Committee of the City of Newport Beach."
Additionally, I should point out that much more
input than just Mr. Milurd's information goes into our
position.
"Initially, may we point out, the
Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce
represents some eleven hundred businesses
within the City of Newport Beach.
The vast majority of these businesses
II
t 213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
are owned and operated by residents of
the City.
We invite the Council's attention
to this fact.to emphasize that our position
is dictated as much by our concern as
resident citizens of Newport Beach as by
our concern for the detrimental affects
to Corona del Mar business if the bypass
is not recommended by the City Council.
If the Council determines to
recommend leaving Pacific Coast Highway
traffic congestion undisturbed, as has
been suggested, or recommends removing
or severely restricting on -street parking,
as has also been suggested, only
catastrophic consequences can result.
The Chamber, in recommending the
bypass, is not a business adversary to
the residents of Newport Beach, but rather,
speaks as the representative of a number
of residents who also operate businesses
within the City."
And in light of Mr. Agee's editorial remarks with
regard to special interest groups, I particularly emphasize
that point.
"After lengthy discussion, and thorough
(2131 437•1327 MACAULEY a MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542s3r7
II
WW
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
analysis of the information provided to
us by our representative, and the traffic
study and report prepared by the consultant,
Alan M. Voorhees and,Associates, Inc., the
Board of Directors with but two exceptions
voted to adopt a position of support for
the bypass, as a solution to traffic
congestion.
This overwhelming mandate by the Board
of Directors to the Chamber has been
recently reaffirmed.
In our opinion, restriction, or removal
of parking along P'CH in Corona del Mar will
not solve the average daily traffic deficiency
within that area.
In point of fact, it was our
representative who initially moved the
Citizens Advisory Committee to recommend
the traffic consultant focus upon the
restriction, or removal of parking, as a
remedy to congestion in that area.
After study, and the completion of
the report by the consultant, however, we
have determined, and now conclude, that
this option is not a feasible solution to
the problem.
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
PTI
1
2
3
4
5,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
As pointed out in option two, found
at page two, of Appendix "D", of the Phase
III Final Report, the option will result in
an Average Daily Traffic deficiency of
eighteen thousand.
This is, the result even with the total
removal of parking on PCH through Corona
del Mar.
When contrasted with the present fourteen
thousand ADT deficiency, the option results
in a twenty-two per cent increase in the
Average Daily Traffic deficiency.
Additionally, we note some community
confusion with regard to the effects of the
construction of the Corona del Mar Freeway
through Bonita Canyon, and improvements to
San Joaquin Hills Road making it a major
artery downcoast.
According to the consultant's figures,
even with the completion of these projects,
the ADT deficiency on PCH through Corona
del Mar remains the same.
This occurs as a result of ever
increasing daily intra-city travel, as
distinguished from inter -city travel, which
'many fear will increase as a result of the
(213) 437.1317 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 542-23f7
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
bypass.
Rather, the bypass will be used by
the residents of Newport Beach in their
own downcoast daily travel, thereby
relieving PCH."
May I ask the Council for an additional five
minutes?
MAYOR MC INNIS: Any discussion on the motion?
(No response to the question) Motion carries.
MR. GERING: Thank you.
"With the present controversy surrounding
the bypass, one this is evidence; everyone
opposing the bypass challenges the consultant's
figures with regard to ADT within the City.
As previously stated, the chief concern
of opponents to the bypass is that the bypass.
will encourage inter -city through traffic.
The consultant's report, as evidenced
by Link Volume Study -- Alternate Network
'A' -- Fifth Avenue Extension, figure ten,
page twenty-one, Phase II of the Summary
Report,.however, supports our conclusion
that PCH traffic congestion through Corona
del Mar is a direct result of intra-city
travel.
The Chamber also recognizes the emotional
1 42131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANAL CALIF. (714) 542.2317
f1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
element surrounding the approval of the
bypass.
Those segments of our citizenry most
directly affected by thb bypass are those
residents who live adjacent thereto; they
do not want a bypass disrupting their
community.
Initially, it is interesting to note
that the developers in the areas adjacent
to the bypass forewarned purchasers of the
possibility of a Corona del Mar Freeway
aligned along the currently proposed bypass.
Although this was later defeated by
popular vote, it is not as if the possibility
of the construction of some major artery
within that area was unknown to them.
Addtionally, the Irvine land, to be
used for the bypass, was originally set
aside for transportation purposes.
If we determine not to use it for that
purpose now, we will run the risk of further
development and density, worsening the
traffic congestion problem.
More importantly, however, it may be
that those concerned citizens have not yet
come to the full realization of the
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
deleterious impact upon their community
if the bypass is not approved, but rather,
parking is removed from PCH.
Should parking be removed from PCH,
it is'axiomatic that parking facilities
will have to be constructed on presently
existing residential streets.
This will, of course, require the
condemnation of presently standing residence,
and will have at least as great, if not a
greater impact upon the community.
This, of course, assumes the City is
not desirous of the removal of all business
from PCH within the Corona del Mar area.
In the final analysis, the Chamber's
position is based upon simple fact -- the
bypass solution resolves traffic congestion,
while the removal of parking from PCH does
not.
Each course of action has its
disadvantages, but the bypass at least has
the advantage of solving traffic congestion.
The Chamber welcomes this opportunity
to inform the City Council of its feelings,
and thanks the Council for its attention.
The Chamber joins with all segments
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY IN MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 542-2317
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-of the community in its desire for a
feasible solution to this burdensome
problem."
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much.
COUNCILMAN ROGERS: Mayor, I have maybe three
questions, if I may.
First off, you state that the Chamber represents
eleven hundred businesses in the City of Newport Beach,
yet nowhere in your communication do you purport to have
polled your membership, and that you are talking about the
Board of Directors only, and in the third paragraph, you
talk about an "overwhelming mandate by the Board of
Directors of the Chamber," and "mandate" is a rather
interesting word to me.
I thought that usually came from the people. I
didn't feel it came from a small Board of a Chamber of
Commerce to this Council.
Are you telling us that the Chamber directors
are "mandating" to this Council without a poll of their
membership?
MR. GERING: Well, the word "mandate" is used,
and the structure of the Chamber of Commerce is such, that
there are twenty-one directors, three from each district,
who represent the business located within their districts.
Additionally, there are some twenty directors -at -large.
42131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
These forty,directors were polled, and it is their
responsibility to accurately reflect the businesses within
their districts that they represent.
Obviously, they wouldn't be doing their job with
regard to representation of the businesses within their
districts if they voted against the general feeling of the
businesses that were contained within their districts, but,
in point of fact, I do not believe that all eleven hundred
businesses were polled.
Aside from the mandate from the Board of Directors
to the Chamber itself, it is my personal opinion that the
businesses within the community join in their directors'
mandate to the Chamber itself.
COUNCILMAN ROGERS* You know, I think it's
interesting in contrast as to the way this comes to us from
the Chamber. We have petitions with some five thousand
signatures of people who will identify themselves.
I think it would be very interesting for the
Chamber, with its eleven hundred businesses, to have those
businesses to identify themselves who are in favor of the
Fifth Avenue bypass.
I think that would be of great interest to the
public,.
MR. GERING: I might point out to Mayor Rogers
that additionally the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce
encompasses those businesses in Corona del Mar, and yet a
9213) 437•1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
M-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
previous speaker had independently conducted his own poll
with regard to Corona del Mar businesses.
I don't purport to stand here and say that we
represent each and every person that makes up the Chamber,
but the directors take a positiono and then present that
position to the Council when they have an opportunity to do
so.
COUNCILMAN STORE: Mr. Mayor, I have a question.
MAYOR MC INNIS: You have questions, Councilman
Store?
COUNCILMAN STORE: Yes, a couple. Do you say that
the vote of the Board of the Chamber was not unanimous?
MR. GERING: No, it was not. There were two
"nays."
COUNCILMAN STORE: How many for?
MR. GERING: Eight. I'm not sure of the accurate
figure. Everybody else was voting.
COUNCILMAN STORE: How many were there? We can
do that arithmetic.
MR. GERING: I assume thirty, or more.
COUNCILMAN STORE: Thirty, or so, were present?
MR. GERING: I believe so. I was not personally
present to ...
COUNCILMAN STORE: Give me the structure of your
Board again. You have how many directors? Twenty-one, I
thought you said.
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 4714) 542.2317
M�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1z
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. GERING: Twenty-one directors that ate
directly responsible to the businesses located within their
districts.
COUNCILMAN STORE: Of those twenty-one directors,
are they all residents on Newport Beach?
MR. GERING: I can't answer that. I couldn't
answer that in truth. I would like to say yes, but I doubt
very seriously that would be correct.
COUNCILMAN STORE: I don't think they are. Do
you know of any of those twenty-one that operate a business
in Corona del Mar?
MR. GERING: Yes.
COUNCILMAN STORE: How many?
MR. GERING: Well, I can just think of one on the
top of my head. I don't have the figure.
COUNCILMAN STORE: Of those twenty-one, there are
how many?
MR. GERING: I assume there would be three, from
that district.
COUNCILMAN STORE: There are three. So, out of
twenty-one, there are three from Corona del Mar. Now, you
said there were two opposed votes. Do you know if those
people had businesses in.Corona del Mar?
MR. GERING: No, but I know for a fact that one
of them is a resident in Harbor View Hills.
COUNCILMAN STORE: Okay. That opposed it.
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
67
II
II
II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. GERING: One of them that opposed it.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Councilman Ryckoff.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: I have a question of Mr.
Gering. In your letter, referring to the Fifth Avenue
Bypass property, you say if we determine not to use it for
that purpose now, mainly, highway, throughway, freeway, we
run the risk of further development and density worsening
and traffic Congestion problems.
The figures I have seen, as I recall, showed
deficiencies on the Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, and I
think on Dover Drive as well -- I!m not positive about
Dover, so I'm asking what your attitude would be with
respect to developments coming down the pike that would be
a good many units in those areas, in all the open space on
J
Dover Drive and on Jamboree Road, and the Coast Highway,
what about all those developments adding to the deficiency?
MR. GERING: I'm sure they will, Councilman
Ryckoff. I•made that point only because during the course
of the public hearings with regard to the segment of the
General Plan of -- and it completely slipped my mind light
now -- I'll call it the density discussion, the Council and
the Public have taken a strong position with regard to
downzoning, and my thought is, at least this is one factor
that the use of that land for a Fifth Avenue Bypass would
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I'
alleviate traffic congestion on Pacific Coast Highway, and
only eliminate further space that could be developed and
cause more density within Newport'Beach.
COUNCILMAN RYCICOFF: I take it the answer to that
is yes. Thank you.
MR. GERING: Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. Next
speaker, please.
MRS. HOFFER: My name is Chris Hoffer, and I live
at 308 Jasmine, in Corona del Mar, and when I have time, I
sell real estate from 3001 East Coast Highway.
Mr. Mayor, and Council, may I answer your question,
Mr. Store, before I start? Mr. Jim Wood, of Unique Homes,
myself, and Don Pennington, who owns a liquor store, are the
directors that represent Corona del Mar, and I can assure
you, sir, that we have talked to every business man and
woman in Corona del Mar, before we voted.
The two abstaining votes were Mr. Jim Parker, and
an attorney who lives in Harbor View Homes. Mr. Parker did
not vote. He abstained from voting.
Tonight, I am representing Mr. and Mrs. Heller
of O'Brien's, Pat Molly of Pat Molly's, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce
of the Silhouette Shop, Mr. and Mrs. Lionbarger of Crown
Hardware, Estelle Auerdale of Auerdale's, Mr. and Mrs. Mace
of the Loft, Mr. and Mrs. Adams who own Coast Supermarket,
Mr. and Mrs. Tupmasters who own both sides of Coast Highway,
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11
B. & B. Mr.•Smith and Mr. Haas, Mr. Olson who owns La Cantin
Mrs. French who owns the Quiet Woman, Mrs. Pike who owns the
Merrimac, Mr. and Mrs. Friedman who own the Memory Box, and
many other people, and here's what they have to say:
"Realizing there are no central
solutions, only intelligent choices,
we ask you to consider our businesses,
and do not remove the parking from Coast
Highway for any reason, any time.
Our economy depends on parking. We
all feel it is your job to come to a
decision that will do the most good for
the most people, including us.
We realize now that Bonita Canyon
is not the question or the answer.
The question is, be it Coast Highway,
San Joaquin, or Fifth Avenue, we do not
want Coast Highway."
And I submit an original copy of my petition for
your records.
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. Next
speaker, please.
MR. WATSON: My name is George Watson. I own a
small business building at 2620, 2626 and 2628 Pacific
Coast Highway.
�4
4213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAL10
1714) 542.2317
We
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Just following up the line of the little lady that
preceded my being here, I would like to say, I have talked
with my tenants, and we consider -- I, personally, am very
proud of the job they are doing.
One is E1 Senor, the other is Jotha, and the other
is Mc Cann's Flower Shop.
I didn't get in on this last application for some
reason, but I concur one hundred per cent with the little
lady that just spoke, and so do my tenants.
We feel that any change in the parking formula
will cause many of the small amount of space available for
parking, at the present time, and minimize this in any way,
will be very detrimental to their business, and most likely
cause them to move out, and we would be as Corona del Mar,
as Newport Beach, would be losing some very fine people
who have done an awfully clean nice job.
In the old days -- I have been here for many a
year; I used to sell boats out of Balboa Marina -- this was
quite a different town than it is now in many ways, as far
as traffic is concerned.
We could cross Pacific Coast Highway with a chance,
a fair chance, a fifty-fifty chance, of getting there alive.
As it is today, it is rugged, and should this go through,
this suggestion that there be no less parking and more lanes
and more cars channeled through the center of Corona del Mar„
I can't see that we're going in the right direction.
1
(213) 437.1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.' 4714) 542.2317
1 3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
' 19
20
' 21
22
23
24
25
26
L
71
On the other hand, I think we're going back, due
to the fact that we want less and not more of the traffic
and the fumes that go with it.
I am howing absolutely one hundred per cent
against any infringement on parking. On the other hand, if
it is necessary, and I think it is, it looks like a made to
order deal on Fifth Avenue.
It's not a freeway; it's a bypass. It's higher.
The fumes will be dissipated at a higher altitude. It will
allow the people that.live in Corona del Mar to cross the
boulevard with greater ease, with a chance of making it,
and that's all I have to say, gentlemen.
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS:
speaker please.
Thank you very much. Next
MR. SANCHEY: Gentlemen, my name is Robert Sanchey,l
and I'm a resident -- owner resident -- at 1038 Sea Lane,
Corona del Mar.
The Planning Commission unanimously accepted the
overwhelming opinion of the entire Corona del Mar community
on December twelfth that an interchange at Coast Highway and
Macarthur was not acceptable as an answer to the traffic
problem, and would, in fact, create other multiple community
problems.
An interchange solution was rejected again
unanimously, at that time. Then, through a process that
(213) 437•1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANC. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
only the members of the Commission know, the matter was
readvertised and reconsidered on February seventh, and, at
that time, a parade of witnesses representing a very wide
spectrum of Corona del Mar residents and financial interests
all testified against such an interchange, against the
inevitable adverse results to the whole community, and
against the magnet for increased traffic that it would be,
against using Newport Beach as a conduit for cross traffic,
against encouraging future downcoast development to look to
the Coast Highway Macarthur route as a through route, and
the whole traffic plan must be an environmental decision and
not a secular decision.
It seems to me that the -California decision, which
strictly are based on so-called progress, have long since
passed.
Fifteen years ago, in San Francisco, when citizens
rejected completing the Embarcadero Freeway -- that's the
one up on stilts, it still just ends prior to bisecting the
entire town.
It was a landmark decision, and a correct one for
the people of the community.
More recently,,the supervisors and voters of Marin
County started out and rejected attempts to increase water
supplies to some reservoirs' carrying capacity knowing full
well the inevitable result of such innocent actions that,
in other words, accelerated development occurs and surely
42131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 17141 542.2317
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10•
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
takes place, and that previous undeveloped valleys and
gullys and open space would have to yield to developers'
bulldozers just because the facilities were there.
Now, that creation of the more -- in other words,
this will create more business communities for them -- more
shopping centers, and ruin the wooded hills rolling forth,
and increase road congestion, the continuation of the compl
urbanization of the California coastal zone.
For similar reasons, Marin rejected joining the.
Bart System, that's the Bay Area Rapid Transit, because it
would accellerate development. Now, there's considerable
controversy over that.
We don't have such -an opportunity as this. Ours
is already, and has been, a highly developed community, but
we do have an opportunity of discouraging and turning down
any efforts to accommodate others at great cost to our own
atmosphere, the town character, the feeling of tranquility,
the contentment of its residents, of this town as a unique
beach city, and we have an obligation to prevent this from
becoming another off -ramp on any freeway.
T believe that this can be accomplished by taking
a firm stand at this time so that other developers in other
cities, mainly downcoast, will realize that their traffic
problems can not be passed on to the City of Newport Beach
residents and businesses alike, happening through either a
Fifth Street corridor, or down the Coast highway and up
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. 4714) 542-2317
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Macarthur Boulevard to get where they want to go.
We can begin by following the mandate of the vote
of 1971, and not allowing large major arteries to bisect
sections of this city when all of the citizens vote in favor
of a bypass, and when I speak of the bypass, up Bonita
Canyon Road.
We can act today, or when you gentlemen consider
it, by reversing the Planning Commission on what was a
reversal of itself, and reject the interchange, and reject
the alternate all the traffic down on Macarthur -- the
route -- and rejecting the Fifth Street corridor.
I believe in this particular matter in the domino
theory. Let's face it, an interchange, or a major increase
in traffic capacity at one end, must either result in a
congestion or a change at the other end, and it is admitted',
that any interchange with an added belief leads to a
bottleneck either downcoast due to the lights that are there,
and a narrowing of the road, or restriction of parking and
perhaps coordination of lights and then further develop
further pressure develop Fifth Street and continued pressure
to bring down Corona del Mar Freeway to the Coast Highway.
I see I have a light here. I'll see the important
parts that I have left.
MAYOR MC INNES: Would you like a little more ti
MR. SANCHEY: Yes, sir, I'd like to finish this.
I am especially worried about ...
12131 437.1327 MACAULEY Sc MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1714I 542.2317
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MAYOR MC INNES: How much, sir?
MR. 5ANCHEY: Oh, about one or two minutes is all.
MAYOR MC INNES: Move two minutes. Any discussion
on the motion? (No response to the question) All those
voting.
CITY CLERK: All ayes. Carried.
MAYOR MC INNES: You have two more minutes.
MR. SANCHEY: I am especially worried. Where is
the traffic for future downcoast development going to go?
In other words, that's the gist of my comments.
I believe we must force it to avoid Coast Highway,
and avoid Macarthur, or we will truly be another off -ramp
community, and the only way *to avoid this whole chain of
events, which can clearly be seen in the future, is to
reject any plan which would lead to, or encourage, the type
of traffic plan and development that I have just described,
i.e. interchange, or even a couplet that would vastly
increase the traffic problem, and changing Macarthur Bbuleva
between the Coast Highway and Jamboree Road to a six or a
larger lane highway, or in building a Fifth Street corridor.
I believe the only way to come around to this is
force people that come from downcoast and want to go through
cross traffic or into the Newport Center by going behind
this community either up the San Joaqin Hills Road or throug
the Bonita Canyon Bypass that's been proposed and strongly
recommended by the Committee, and this means reversing the
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 542.2317
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
decision as to an interchange now, that means closing these
options to the developers for the future and I think it's
holding down the density of future projects, and I do
strongly tie in density with these projects, such,as the
Promentory Point,Apartments, which I believe should have
been about half as dense as they are, at least it's an
incredible pile of apartments, and the ten -story condominium
which has recently been proposed at Newport Center, these
should be less than one-half of that height because this,
again, further increases density, further increases the
pressures for making this a huge metropolitan center.
Thank you, gentlemen.
MAY MC INNES: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. VAN HOVEN: My name is George Van Hoven, and
I live at 556 Seaward Road, Corona del Mar, in Corona
Highlands. I represent the Board of Directors of the Corona
Highlands,.tand'myself, in speaking before.you tonight.
I was interested to see, in the Daily Pilot,
tonight -- a paper which doesn't support the positions that
I support very often -- two interesting things on the front
page.
First, there was a picture that I had heard about
but had never seen, of Coast Highway in 1930 -- sometime in
the 1930's -- which showed it bumper -to -bumper, as it is
today.
I think this is very illustrative of something
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) $42.2317
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
that I have tried to understand, and make other people
understand, that,Corona del Mar at Newport Beach is a
popular place to come,,and people are going to come here no
matter how good the roads are, and they always have.
The second article on the front page of the Daily
Pilot has to do with the projections of PO&E for their
Huntington Beach plant, and they have now put the plans for
expansion off for several years because from their observati
that growth has slowed in orange County, and they have
projected previously a ten per cent growth rate, and now
they're thinking something more like a five per cent growth
rate for Orange County.
Now, it's considerations such as this that have
gotten me interested in talking about what the road plan
should be, and trying to understand the figures and the
recommendations of the consultant, so I would like to stand
here, after having gone through that analysis, to support
the recommendations of the consultant, Alan Voorhees, with
one exception,, which I will discuss in a moment, and to
disagree with one recommendation of the Planning Commission
in respect to this sector in Corona del Mar.
First, briefly, for the Corona Highlands Associat
our Board of Directors has met just lately and has passed
for what must be the third time in a row a unanimous
resolution which says we are against the building of the
Fifth Avenue corridor, and that we are against the restrict
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY Sc MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7$4) 542.2317
W.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
restriction of parking and the interchange in Corona del
Mar, because we do not see, having looked the figures over,
we do not see the need for any of these developments.
Speaking for myself, Cal Me Laughlin and I, looked
through the figures, and studied the figures of the consulta i
because we wanted to understand what was going to happen to
Corona del Mar, and in particular, we made the observation
that since the figures were put to bed, more or less, in
March, 1973, that there was a great state of flux.
The fuel crisis has come along since that time,
the Coastal Commission has come along since that time, and
Orange County Transit District has really begun making an
impression since that time, 'and so we wanted to understand
that.
Particularly, we wanted to understand what was
talked about for a while and not recommended, which was the
technical solution to Corona del Mar, which was the building
of the Fifth Avenue roadway -- expressway, as it's called.
The addition of this road would increase from four
lanes presently through Corona del Mar, to ten lanes through
Corona del Mar.
At the very least, that would expand our traffic
capacity by a factor of two and a half, and if you count,
as we have, for the last eight years -- and all these
figures are summertime traffic -- the capacity of Pacific
Coast Highway is forty thousand cars per day.
1213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
If that is expanded, at the very least that will
be a hundred thousand cars per day, the ten lanes, including
Coast Highway and Fifth Avenue.
Now, that is larger than any projection that has
ever been made for Corona del Mar. The biggest number of
all was sixty-seven thousand.
So, that is, what I believe, is behind what the
Daily Pilots says is a somewhat controversial thing, because
it is a proposal to put more traffic capacity through town
than we have any need for, and I think that's probably
controversial.
Now, for controversial, one really should read,
when it comes to the citizens, that they violently
disapprove of it, and one reason that they do disapprove of
it, in my mind, is the problem to people, is that this road
would attract traffic to town that might not necessarily go
there.
That's what, generally speaking, good roads do.
People ...
MAYOR MC INNIS: You have another minute, or you
can ask for more time.
MR. VAN HOVEN: Okay, could I have, like, three
more minutes?
COUNCILMAN ROGERS: I'll move it.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Any discussion on the motion?
(No response to the question) All those voting.
0
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
_'
MCI
J
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CITY CLERK: All ayes. Carried.
MR. VAN HOVEN: Thank you very much. Now, we
think that a good road of that kind would draw traffic into
town which would not normally come there, and one thing that
we find very destructive, and we'agree with the consultant
on this, is that it will remove the need for the Bonita -
Coyote Bypass.
If this road is put through Corona del Mae, and
it's not now in the plan, and we hope that it is taken out
and put to bed, that will remove any need for what the
consultant has said is the ideal solution, namely, that there
should be a bypass around town to take traffic.
Now, the importance of this access to the south
of town can not be over emphasized because Corona del Mar
is in a very strange position.
The downtown area is between two generators of
traffic, the south coast, which would be, in 1990, the new
Irvine development, and Fashion Island, and the figures
which have gone into the projections which have indicated
some of the need for these roads, those have come in the
main from the Irvine Company, and they have not come, so
far, from public'hearings where they are open to scrutiny.
Now, for example, in particular, with respect to
Fashion Island, the projections there indicate that so many
retail employees will be there in 1990, and each of those
retail employees will generate fifteen auto traffic trips a
(213) 437.1327 MACAU LEY tk MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 54e-2317
m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
day.
Now, that!s a lot, a very important multiplier,
and it depends on how much you think it's going to be in
Fashion Island.
Now, the Irvine business, their business is positi e
thinking, which is okay, but I think that the consultant
properly, and this Council need to have a more realistic
attitude towards what is proper in town, and more realistic
standards.
The consultant rightly recognized, and he has
recommended a responsible answer to this problem of the
Irvine Company and the citizens in the bypass which goes
entirely around town. '
With this addition, even in the biggest part of
your thinking which could come from the Irvine Company,
with the addition of the bypass around town, the worst
overload on Coast Highway in 1990 is only twenty per cent,
eight thousand cars more than we have right now.
Now, all of this was put to bed before March, 173,
before the gasoline shortage, and before the Orange County
Transit District.
In view of the growth figures before any of these
new things, in our analysis of the figures, believe Fifth
Avenue should never be needed in this town, and that this
Council should, as the consultant has recommended, and the
Planning Commission, put that to bed once and for all, and
I2I3) 437.13z7 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 54z•2317
I
a
I
I
i
I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
take it off the shoulders of the people.
The people have fought this through the freeway
fight, and on, and on, and it keeps reappearing, and we ask
you just to put that to bed once and forever.
Secondly, and I don't often agree with Miss Hoppe
we have disagreed on some things, but I notice she did not
mention Fifth Avenue tonight, we do not feel under our
analysis of the data that the removal of parking on Coast
Highway is warranted at this time.
That may come, but it is not warranted at this
time, nor, clearly, is the interchange recommended by the
Planning Commission.
In the sense that the Daily Pilot has used the
word, I think that these should be taken out of the plan
and put away, and they should be the options that you keep
open.
If time should come, you can think on a relatively
short term, without much expenditure of energy, in putting
either or something else, in the removal of parking in
Corona del Mar.
We do not believe that the figures show that these
are warranted at the present time.
Thank you very much.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you. Next speaker please.
MR. BLAKEMORE: Good evening, gentlemen, I am
J. R. Blakemore, vice-president and director of municipal
I
1213) 437.1327 MACAULEY a MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.23t7
Ltn
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I
affairs of the Harbor.Hills Community Association.
our residents -- I appreciate this opportunity to
convey their views. our Board has unanimously approved the
elements in the report pertaining to Corona del Mar, and
more importantly, perhaps, is the fact that the overwhelming
majority of those residents have signed a petition, already
presented.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that project
number eight, as described on page seventy-one, as approved
by the Planning Commission, and that project number seven --
no, I've got that backwards, project seven was approved by
the Planning Commission, and the other project that was
recommended by the consultant, be adopted.
In other words, the Coast Highway, -without an
interchange at Macarthur, is felt to be the proper outlet
for traffic .flowing through Corona del Mar.
It is also requested that the Council specifically
adopt the statement on page twenty-one of the report, as
to the importance of the Corona del Mar Freeway on the
Bonita Canyon --Coyote Canyon alignment, and that it establis
as City policy, a ban on the Corona del Mar Freeway traversi
Newport Beach, consistent with the intent of the Charter
Amendment two years ago.
I'll skip through some of these since many of
these points have already been covered.
The mass rapid transit corridor, recommended by
fr
42131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
11
m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Voorhees Company, and which the orange County Transit
District will hold a hearing next week, includes the Corona
del Mar Freeway as one of the corridors, as Newport Beach
has already admittedly.well voted as to its speeches, its
streets, and in other respects, we think the Council should
be greatly concerned that no action be taken that in any way
could jeopardize the routing of the Corona del Mar Freeway
along Bonita Canyon.
For example, an interchange at Coast Highway and
Macarthur could be such an action.
We agree with the Voorhees Company that a multi-
level interchange at Macarthur is not required. It
obviously would knockout considerable property, including
businesses,off the tax rolls.
An interchange would also invite the other two
roads. Either of these would apparently necessitate another
vote of the citizens, since one of them clearly is covered
by the Charter Amendment, and since, as I understand it,
the Corona del Mar Freeway agreement now extends only to
San Miguel.
In passing, I should like to note that some of the
previous speakers had talked about an engineering solution
as being the desirable one.
I'd.like to make an analogy. on that basis,
pretty clearly, the Orange County Airport would immediately
be put into construction which would convert it into a LAX.
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. t714) 542-2317
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I don't think anybody in the room would welcome
that, and yet, that would be an engineering construction
analagous to what the speakers were recommending for Fifth
Avenue.
Another speaker so indicated that the signers of
the petitions were just citizens of Corona del Mar, or those
advocating opposition, or opposing Fifth Avenue. This is
not true.
I picked up a number of the signatures that were
solicited at Fashion Island. I was rather flabbergasted at
the number•of people who don't even live in Newport Beach
who were wanting to sign.
Well, we didn't acbept any signature outside of
Newport Beach, and we picked up, oh, two or three hundred
there of Newport Beach residents other than Corona del Mar
residents, but a very common and thematic reaction on seeing
the map showing Fifth Avenue and/or the Corona del Mar.
Freeway, was, "Oh, no, not that again! I thought we had
put that to bed two years ago," or another common reaction,
"When will they stop trying to ram freeways through us?"
Now, one other point, the people seemed to -- I
should say, we're not recommending prohibiting parking on
Coast Highway, but I would like to correct one impression
that seems to be a lesson, and that is, if parking is
prohibited, that, somehow or another, of itself, multiplies
the cart.
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 542.2317
LUL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
It isn't logical, obviously, because if the cars
now going through four lanes are permitted to be disbursed
over six lanes, it doesn't multiply them, it disburses them,
and it would make it easier to cross the street and not
more difficult, because it just doesn't logically follow
that prohibiting parking for an hour in the morning and
afternoon would somehow or other would create six lanes of
traffic, bumper to bumper, racing down the street.
The implication is, that in addition, our police
department would go to sleep just by reason of the prohibits r
of parking for an hour, or so.
MAYOR MC INNES: How much more time would you need?
MR. BLAKEMORE: Oh-, I think another couples three
minutes would do it, if I may have the time, sir.
COUNCILMAN ROGERS: Move three.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Any discussion on the motion?
(No response to the question) All -those voting.
CITY CLERK: All ayes. Carried.
MAYOR MC INNIS: You have three minutes additional.
MR. BLAKEMORE: One other aspect, at the time the
Planning Commission held a hearing, some of the members
found a difference between the final report, as noted above,
and as they recommended in their project eight and seven
particularly, and the Assessment of Options set forth in
Appendix D-3 -- that was the one with particular reference
to the Macarthur-Jamboree segment.
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
I�
1 I would like to point out those assessments were
2 made up a year and a half ago based on best technical
3 factors with much less consideration for cars, or for
4 people, and the Voorhees representative acknowledged that.
5 By the,time the final report was prepared, many
6 of these other developments that have been mentioned -- gas,
7 density, smaller cars -- have come about, and they are very
8 important.
9 In fact, the Voorhees Company itself mentions that
10 on page thirty-five-- that because of some of these factors
11 fewer auto facilities may be needed, and that the implementa
12 program should be considered, "not lightly nor frivilously,
13 but certainly cautiously," and I would certainly endorse
14 that.
15 One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is the
16 tremendous increase in downcoast recreation areas, from
17 Corona del Mar to Camp Pendleton. There are to be about
18 thirteen miles of beaches in that area.
19 Now, surely, that construction will serve to draw
20 a number of people who now fight their way down to the
21 Corona del Mar -Newport Beach beaches, and surely would
22 provide considerable relief to Coast Highway.
23 I would also like to point out that building a
24 highway along Fifth and an interchange at'Macarthur would
25 be very costly, and unfortunately, would be irreversable.
26 As one other speaker mentioned, it would certainly
1213, 437•t327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
It
L]10:
I'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
behoove us, I think, to go the other way around, and to take
the steps recommended by the consultant, with the knowledge
that the other alternatives are going to be present forever.
Avocado is not going to go away, it's going to be
there; and Fifth Avenue, regardless, almost, of what might
be done with it, it could be reacquired for a small fraction
of what it would cost to jump in and build it right now.
I believe the consultant estimates that bridging
those gullies, and what not, would mean that Fifth Avenue
would cost approximately nine million dollars, and that is
not inconsequential.
Also, if Fifth Avenue isn't built, presumably much
of that property could either be returned to tax rolls, or
devoted to parks or other useful purposes.
I think most of these other points have been
covered, so, thank you very much for your time.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. I've had
a request for a recess. We've been at it for a little over
two hours. I'll declare a ten minute recess.
MR. HU14MEL: Mayor Mc Innis, members of the
Council, I'm Paul Hummel, president of the Corona del Mar
Civic Association.
I think that the Corona del liar Civic Association
and the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce are the only
organized groups that can really speak for the old Corona
del Mar area, which is the Acacia -to Poppy, and Ocean to
fi
(2131 4!7.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 4714) 542.2317
[�7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
II
Fifth Avenue generally, but in our Civic Association we have
people who live outside, we have people who are non-resident
owners, and our group, we feel, is interested, we've
assembled frequently, we've discussed matters that affect
the City and Corona del Mar, and we've been emotional, but
I think most of us are past that emotional part of this
thing, and we're really looking to something that would be
palatable in a solution.
It's not an easy thing; it's a very difficult
thing, particularly when you look from the air down on what
we have, what we'd like to be able to do.
It was our judgment in the Association that we
should poll our membership on the petition that was
circulated, which nearly approached five thousand signatures,
and its content I think you know.
You have heard the content of it. They favored
the Bonita Canyon -Coyote Canyon continuation of the Corona
del Mar Freeway.
There was opposition to a corridor on the Fifth
Avenue area,'and there was opposition in the petition to
any changes in Coast Highway with regard to turns, dividers,
lanes, or any alteration in the parking.
Our Association was ninety-eight per cent in
favor of supporting that petition. Now, that petition
contained about two thousand names of people who live south
of Fifth Avenue, and I would like to dispel the statement --
I
(2131 437.1327 MACAULEY 8c MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
di]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
liI
I'd like to take issue with the statement that there are just
a few people who live along the route that are concerned.
We're all concerned in Corona del Mar for the
reason that we feel it will bisect the community. The people'
who live up on the hill in the newer section, and they also
are Corona del Mar -- not old Corona del Mar, but Corona del
Mar -- they're concerned because it's going to put something
between them and the shopping area, the beach, it's going
to make it difficult probably to cross over.
I've never seen a freeway go through an area yet
that it didn't do something to values on either side, and
I think for that reason they're concerned that anything be
placed through in the form of a wedge to Corona del Mar as
we know it.
I do believe that we all agree that the problem
is with the through traffic that attempts to make its way
north and south through the City, and perhaps inward to the
freeway, and I think the only solution to ridding ourselves
of the problem of heavy dense traffic on the streets is to
find the solution that will enable our traffic to get around
the City.
I see no solution to widening the street with
regard to how it might help business. I can't understand
why a Chamber of Commerce -- and that's the Newport Chamber,
as I understand them to speak -- felt it would be to some
advantage, you know, to open it up so people could make their
(r^
L
1213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
'I
way through.
I don't believe those people will be the ones that
will remain to shop. I think the other traffic on the road
will probably prevent the local people from shopping there.
We find it difficult to go out on the weekends
when the heavy.traffic is_passing through to shop locally,
and I don't think making it more simple to pass through
and get through this area and add more cars, will help that
situation at all.
I think that all the statistics that were brought
before you by the people that have already addressed you,
you're well aware of, you've had an opportunity to see them
in the report.
I believe that we can only request that you give
this your strongest consideration for making this a
destination area, not a thoroughfare, and look to these
north and south connectors to allow people to get in here
and get out of here, but not through here.
Thank you very much.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you.
MR. SHWELBY: My name is Alan Shwelby, 2860 Alta
Vista Drive, Newport Beach.
I live, I work, I own property directly affected
by Pacific Coast Highway, and the large road along Fifth
Avenue, that would take through traffic through our city
limits and dump it in the Irvine land south of here that
L
(2131 437.1327 ' MACAULEY & MANNING. 5ANTA ANA• CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
92
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
may soon be developed.
I wish we could set up immigration laws to keep
out people who also would like to use the beaches that are
rightfully theirs and they pay taxes for.
What will happen when the Irvine Company develops
the land between Corona del Mar and Emerald Bay?
I would suggest that the Fifth Avenue land may
be used, as one gentleman said, for parks, and kept in
abeyance in case, in years to come, we may have to use it,
because we have a magnet in Newport Center called Fashion
Island.
If they put in -- and as far as I know, the land
does not belong to Newport Beach for our City Council to
regulate at present -- and if they do put in a thousand
homes in the land there, we will have an additional problem.)
We would be like ostriches, sticking our heads in
the sand, to develop the land along Fifth Avenue, and we can
hope that Bonita Canyon, if that goes through, does do some
good and alleviates our traffic.
It also may account for thousands of more cars on
Macarthur Boulevard, and clog up Pacific Coast Highway even
more.
I would also not like to see the side streets in
quaint old Corona del Mar clogged with parking lots, traffic,)
and the parking that should be on Pacific Coast Highway now
that helps nurture business in our community.
12131 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALM t7141 542.2317
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
When we looked to ptIrchase a home in the Lusk
Homes, we were told about the Fifth Avenue land, what was
to become of it -- at that time, we were told it was going
to become a freeway, and we were told that each buyer would -
get a complete report.
There's a Latin expression called caveat emptore,-
and even though those homes have doubed and tripled in price;
I don't think that a bypass, if developed at Some time --in
the future, would endanger the property values. I think
that's what the people are worried about.
I think that. you Councilmen have a job to
represent the whole community, not just one homeowner
association, or those homeowners associations are walled
to Fifth Avenue.
I'm not necessarily in favor of Fifth Avenue
policy at the present, but I think that we have to be
realistic, and that's about the only open land we have that
might get traffic from Macarthur through the City, non-stop,
and dump it in the Irvine lands south of the City.
Thank you.
COUNCILMAN ROGERS: Mr. Mayor, I have a question
of the speaker, if I may. Your statement is, as I take U; _
suggests that we make a park use out of Fifth Avenue for a
period of time to hold it so that we can make a highway use -
later, and I'd just like to point out one thing, that
earlier it was stated that the highway was an irreversible
1213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 342.2317
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1$
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
u
7
option for -Fifth Avenue.
I would state that with the sociology of today,
that a park is even more irreversible. I like your idea.of
the park.
MR. SHWELBY: But, I would say it would be less
than probably a high-rise or a condominium setup.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. Next speaker
please.
MR. HILL: Mr. Mayor, and Councilmen, my name is
Jerry Hill. I live at 404 Iris, in Corona del Mar.
My home lays between Pacific Coast Highway and
Bayside Drive. I also own a home, a duplex, at 715-1/2
Orchid, two properties south of Fifth Avenue.
I bought that many, many years ago, when Fifth
Avenue was but an alley. Now, Fifth Avenue carries traffic
at forty miles an hour, considerably faster than you can
drive on the Pacific Coast Highway, and for those people
who know how to get to it, it's a good way to get out of
town when the traffic is blotched up on Coast Highway.
So is Bayside Drive, and they ditch off on
Macarthur and go down Bayside Drive lickety-split until
they get down to the slow bends and then they filter up
through Irvine Terrace, so they all jam up down by the
bridge.
Pacific Coast Highway is pretty critical in this
apex that I live in.
lam'
1213) 437-1327 MACAULEY 81 MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I am a member of the Corona del Mar Association,
and when I was president of the Association there was a
group who were very much in favor of the bypass, but they
were in favor of a bypass as it was discussed by the Traffic
Advisory Committee, and it was not labeled a freeway.
Unfortunately, I feel that the stigma of the
freeway is here, and we live with it, and maybe because it
is six lanes wide it sounds like a freeway, it looks like
a freeway, and I feel there are a great many people who
signed that petition who said, "Oh, that's a freeway; they're
going to build•a freeway down Fifth Avenue," and that's the
way it was proposed -- it was purported to the people to be
a freeway, and it is not. Maybe if it were four lanes wide,
it might be acceptable to the public.
I certainly know'the feeling that was expressed to
me when I was president of the Association was that to take
traffic off of the Pacific Coast Highway -- which has been
discussed tonight many times -- is just not acceptable.
Also, I heard talk when I used to attend meetings
we couldn't speak, but I used to sit in the meetings -- and
there was talk in the crowd at the Traffic Advisory meetings,
"Well, if we don't put the Fifth Avenue through, let's build
a park back there; you know, let's make that into one great
nice big park."
I am sure that all of the people in this City are
well aware of what it would cost to maintain a park of that
4213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
size, and we already have a big enough problem in maintaining
our beaches, and don't get much sharing from people outside
our community with that, and to build a park the size of
our beaches, and have to maintain it, and light it, and keep
it up, would seem to me to be a little bit ridiculous, and
we, the people who live here, would have to pay for it, and
I think we have some very nice parks in the City, so the
park back there is pretty ridiculous, although I can't
imagine that the Irvine Company is going to build a park
back there, or that they're going to sit idly for the next
twenty years while we decide whether or not we're going to
use that property, but I do think that if the Fifth Avenue
thing goes away, that we should consider some method to
keep that property in abeyance so that if the Coast Highway
does become crowded, that we do have a way to implement that
bypass, or whatever it is to be •called.
One other thing I would like to bring up is that
tonight nobody has discussed how long is it going to be
before Bonita, -Canyon is here; you know, they talk about
Bonita Canyon like, you know, we can just go out there and
pave that bloody thing.
We had to go to Sacramento to get the extension
on the Corona del Mar Freeway back on the market. That's
been in the paper. You know they had to go beg them to give
us the money to do that, and they did a fine job.
The tract dumps traffic right off down at
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 342.2317
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11
University•Avenue and Macarthur Boulevard, and there's a
sign on the San Diego Freeway just as big as it can be and
it says Corona del Mar, and from what I know about freeways
and what I know about the time it takes to get freeways
built -- we wouldn't even see Bonita Canyon for the next
ten years, and we would be lucky if we could see it then.
I don't know. I'd like to ask you, the City
Council. And I would think that when he have our meeting
the next time, I think that it would be important for all
these people to get up here and state not the generalities
in this report but just exactly what it says.
How long is it going to take before Pacific Coast
Highway is going to be jammed to the gunwales with the
tracts that come down across the Boulevard that have no
place to go?
It sure as hell isn't going to the City dump,
and that's the only way the road goes up Bonita Canyon right
now.
I'm saying, how long is Bonita Canyon going to
take to go from that point, where it might end, when they
finish it in four years, if our money is enough, and get on
down to the Coast Highway?
What's going to happen in the meantime? How long
would it take to put the.bypass together? And what are the
true effects of the removing of the traffic off the Coast
Highway, if it comes to that?
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. )714) 342.2317
Z3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
And I would like to hear the Voorhees Commission
tell the people just what that means.
Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN STORE: I have a question.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Councilman Store.
COUNCILMAN STORE: Mr. Hill, I know that you
probably haven't had a chance to read all of the Minutes
of the meetings of the Transportation Planning Citizens
Advisory Committee, but I just happen to have it in my
hands here, the Minutes of that July 23rd meeting, and I
quote from the second page, in the middle of the page.
It says:
"Mr. Weinberger asked Mr. Krier if
Fifth Avenue would be like a freeway if
access was restricted.
Mr. Krier replied that it would be
similar."
If they had taken the word "similar" and said
"it is a freeway," that is about what it says.
MR. STILL: Mr. Store, is there a way -- could I
take one more minute in answer to his question -- is there
a way that we could implement a road, say four -lanes, back
along Fifth Avenue, that would then release pressure off
of the Pacific Coast Highway and not have it a freeway --
we don't need six lanes but we might be able to use four
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA, CALIF. 4714) 542.2317
I
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
lanes, because where are they going to put the traffic that's
coming down Macarthur Boulevard for the next ten years while
Bonita Canyon is being built? If it gets built.
COUNCILMAN STORE: Mr. Hill, I think you made a
very good point earlier, that Bonita Canyon might be several
years away, but there's one thing many people who have
spoken here earlier, as I heard, said that if the Fifth
Avenue was built, that it would further delay Bonita Canyon.
SIR. HILL: I think that that's a good point, but
I think that's a point that somebody who, with the knowledge,
should argue well. I'm not so sure that that would really
happen, then.
COUNCILMAN STORE: That's why we depend on the
traffic consultant's report, also, when we discuss this.
MR. HILL: Well, it was the Bonita Canyon and
the bypass -- were they alternates? Or was it the Coast
Highway and Fifth Avenue that was an alternate after Bonita
Canyon was in existence?
COUNCILMAN STORE: I can't engage in a discussion...•
with Mr. Hill here. He would have to hear you.
MR. HILL: Okay. Thank you.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. Next
speaker please.
MRS. KAREN: I tried to speak at a Council meeting
once before and was told that I was a little out of order,
but this time I've come to the right meeting, and I'm not
12131, 437.1327 1 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
an accomplished speaker, and I wish I was. I'd like to get
that point across.
I'm a resident of Corona del Mar, and I live on
Fourth Avenue, and I'm Helen M. Karen, and I'm tired of
outsiders' opinions in our community.
The picture I seem to get is of the four to six
lane Coast Highway, four to six lanes on the Fifth Avenue
Bypass -- now this is up just two blocks from one another,
practically; two to three blocks -- then go up the road of
Marguerite a little bit, two or three blocks,and we've got
another six -lane highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, right?
Now, do I get a picture of a total of eighteen
lanes? Am I wrong? In a matter of practically six blocks?
Now, at this moment, this much cement in Corona
del Mar, you have to come along and ruin a beautiful
community?
Everyone I speak to says, "I've always wanted to
live there." 11hat appearance is our community going to have
when you people finish with it with eighteen lanes of cement?
(Laughter and applause)
MAYOR MC INNIS: (Banging gavel to restore order)
Please!
MRS. KAREN: No, I'm glad you're behind me. I
need that support tonight. (Laughter) I really do, Mayor,
and I really appreciate it when my voice is beginning to
rattle, and I told them that back there, I haven't got the
1 (213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
strength.
We do need strength in Corona del Mar. You're
spoiling something very beautiful. You get to the top of
Marguerite and you look down and you see the most beautiful
community in the,world. You can't find another one like it.
All right. You've taken care of the traffic with
your eighteen lanes. What about the people, and the children
and the appearance of'our beautiful community?
It's gone, and once it's gone, you can't bring
it back. I put in eighty-three thousand dollars into my
home, to live in a ghetto. I'll have three roads, and all
I'll do all day is watch six.
Is that fair? To pay the taxes I pay? And the
price I paid for my home? I don't think so.
Let's forget the district bypass. Who wants to
get rid of Corona del Mar? Who is behind it? Who wants us
out? Because we're "old Corona del Mar?" That's the term.
Someone is behind it -- we've got to believe it --
to force us into a position that we're in after the voters
went ahead and said, "no," you're going to make us have
eighteen lanes of cement.
Good -night, gentlemen. Blessings.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. (Applause)
Next speaker please. It appears like we have run out of
speakers. If we have, I'd just like to -- Oh, we've got
one more, excuse me.
1 (219) 437•t327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7141 542.z317
102
1
2
3
4
S.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
�1
MR. IiASKEL: I'm sorry I'm late, your honor, but
since I just arrived from a previous ...
MAYOR MC INNIS: You're going to have to speak
up a little bit.
MR, HASKEL: Since I just arrived,,due to a prior
commitment, I couldn't chose the moment, unfortunately.
My name is John Haskell. I'm a resident of
Corona del Mar, at 710 Ramona Drive.
Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, I will
address my remarks to what I feel is a substantial risk in
the circulation element as proposed, and submit, for your
consideration, one amendment which I feel is offsetting to
that risk.
The plan contains this statement: "The key to
the solution of the traffic problems in Newport Beach is
the development of a major bypass route around the City,"
namely, the Bonita Canyon route.
As all who have followed the development of
Newport Beach highway planning know, many trials, pitfalls
and obstacles'are present between the time when general
consensus is reached on the need for a proposed highway,
and the time that highway is constructed.
A minimum freeway timetable of maybe ten years
assumes the legislature would be willing to designate such
a route, and that the neighboring agencies would support it,
and also assumes an absence of the overwhelming objections
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542.2317
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
II
to freeways we've seen in recent years.
And, perhaps, most importantly, it assumes that
State, County and local agencies will have, and wish to
spend, hundreds of millions of dollars to construct this
freeway.
These are the risks that concern the entire plan,
with Bonita Canyon as its cornerstone. With respect to
Bonita Canyon, I feel the risks are worth taking, and that
you should pursue vigorously the realization of this
freeway.
With respect to the system east of Newport Bay,
however, the risks are of far greater consequence.
Assume for the moment that despite your vigorous
efforts, any one of the above assumptions proves false,
namely, that surrounding agencies don't support, that
objectors overwhelm, and, most likely, that the funds just
are not there.
In any of these events, the Bonita Canyon Freeway
sould not be built. Then, the key is lost, and the system
fails.
The failure would be felt throught the City's
transportation network east of upper bay. The failure would
be apparent in congestion, increased travel time, and
longer and longer peak hour loads.
But most damagingly, the failure would be felt
on residential streets as frustrated motorists, especially
I
(213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. 1714) 542.2317
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
',
you, and me, and the o.ther Newport residents who know our
local streets well, try to escape arterial congestion, and,
in so doing, turn quiet, narrow, residential streets, into
busy arteries.
This, in my mind, is the worst effect of an
insufficient traffic plan; an inevitable effect if our
gamble on the Bonita Canyon Bypass should fail.
in light of the significant odds against the
successful completion of the Bonita Canyon Freeway, and
the substantial detrimental effect of failure in that
regard, I recommend that the circulation element be amended
by the inclusion of a route along Fifth Avenue, a route
designated, "further coordination required."
I had a somewhat lengthy statement, which I will
present to,the clerk, in writing, and not take additional
time today. I'm sure most of these things have been gone
over already.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Thank you very much. Anybody
else? (No response to the question)
I would like to close the meeting of this evening
with, again, another apology on the part of the Council,
and the staff, for the inadvertant problem that was created
here this evening.
Let me remind you all that we have taped, as we
do every Council meeting, all the remarks made. In addition
to that, a transcript of that tape will be made, and certain
(213) 437•1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 542.2317
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
will be available to anybody who wishes that.
I can't say, at the moment, how long that will
take, but, I would say, within a few days, a transcript will
be available, and certainly anybody, or everybody, for that
matter, who has any new evidence or testimony to present to
this Council, may certainly do so on March llth, when this
matter will come back, properly and legally advertised, and
with that ...
COUNCILMAN ROGERS: Mr. Mayor, I would like to
make a suggestion. The people who are here in support of
one side or the other of this issue, don't think that it
is over nowr and I think you would be very, very wise to
be here, in attendance, on the eleventh.
COUNCILMAN KYMLA: Mr. Mayor, I have one question.
I would assume that the Public Hearing will be first on the
agenda.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Yes, it will. It will be Item
One on the Agenda on March eleventh.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Councilman Ryckoff.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: Excuse me. I have one brief
item on additional business.
I'd like to ask the staff to look at the matter
of the Promentory Point signal on the Coast Highway, with
respect to traffic affects, with three things in mind, here
One, whether that signal would have an undesirable
4213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, 3ANTA ANA, CALIF, 17141 542.2317
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
affect on Cbast highway traffic.
Two, whether other access and egress to Promentory
Point would b e appropriate -- for example, eastward entranc
and egress' on Coast Highway, and westward on Bayside Drive.
Three, whether we can delete this signal from the
existing plan.
MR. WYNN: I will jumpin, Mr. Mayor. I woula
appreciate that coming to the March eleventh Study Session,
if possible.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Mr. Wynn is indicating he will
try. That's a heavy order, but I'm sure he will give it
a good college try, here.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: Mr.* Mayor.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Councilman Ryckoff.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: One other item. There was
a letter that we received from the County of Orange, dated
February 28th. I had certain notations with respect to
this, and I'm just wondering if the staff might not also
bring that back to us at the Study Session with their
comments on the County of Orange's comments to this plan.
MAYOR MC INNIS: I'm sure they will.
MR. WYNN: Yes.
MAYOR MC INNIS: Unless any Councilman has
additional business, I'll consider a Motion to Adjourn.
COUNCILMAN RYCKOFF: I Move to Adjourn.
MAYOR MC INNIS: We stand adjourned.
I213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. 5ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 542 _2317
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C E.R T I F I C A T E
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing pages,
numbered from 1 through 106, inclusive, are a true and
accurate transcription of a tape recording supplied to me
on Friday, March 1, 1974, at the City of Newport Beach
City Hall.
DATED this Fifth day of March, A. D. 1974, in
the City of Garden Grove, County of Orange, and State of
California.
OFFICIAL SEA
ARTHUR SPRING
7. ,•,
NOTARY PUBLIC- CALIFORNIA :.
'� •, " },`
l;fia;:._ COUNTY '
•o ti)'as A��B.2o, 1977
L1y Core^_
I
1213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 542.2317