Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW*NEW FILE* CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW TO FROM: SUBJECT ADVANCED PLANNING - PLANNING DEPARTMENT Public Works Department GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT - BALBOA BOULEVARD AND MARGUERITE AVENUE 1 July 31.,_1980 At the June 23, 1980 City Council meeting, the Council supported the TPCAC recommendation to consider an amendment to the circulation element for the following: 1) Eliminate the secondary road designation Balboa Boulevard east of B Street. 2) Eliminate Marguerite Avenue as a secondary road from Coast Highway to 5th Avenue. In the review of these changes, the comments made in the attached May 22, 1980 letter from the Orange County EMA Director should be considered. If we wish to continue to receive Arterial Highway Financing Program (AHFP) funds from the County, we must receive concurrence from them on any changes we make to the circulation element. The Public Works Department has no comment one way or the other about the deletion of the Balboa Boulevard segment. Since Marguerite Avenue from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road acts as a north -south feeder for the area and carries 7-9,000 vehicles per day, it may be difficult to show that it is appropriate to remove a segment from this roadway. There aren't any other logical routes to replace the segment recommended for removal. One of the things the County will look for in our request for removal will be whether or not the change provides a circulation system with continuous routes. The evaluation of this recommended change should look at the continuity of the whole circulation system and should comment on the advisability and ramification of removing a piece from one of the circulation system routes. When will these two items be considered for an amendment? On, Don Webb Assistant City Engineer DW:do Att. 1 rCEIVED JUL 3 I1980m, C4 I *_ a 6 ,0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER June 24t, 1980 TO: B31L3Y@®EK, CURRENT PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: OCTOBER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Please include in the October GP amendments the two recommendations of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee; namely, eliminate the secondary road designation on Balboa Blvd., east of B Street, and on Marguerite between PCH and 5th Avenue. RaWuf"� ROBERT L. WYNN C&Y OF 'N.E WPOR T B&CH COUNCILMEN MINUTES A ROLL CAL �� *P June 23. 1980 0. Sashay addressed the Council and asked for a copy of Policy Q-1, which was given to him. Motion Council Policy Q-1, "General Plan," was amended All Ayes as proposed to lengthen the filing deadline for developer -requested General Plan Amendments to one hundred sixty days ptiot to the month for which public,hearings are scheduled. 3. A letter from Hersel Mahgerefteh was presented Business Lic requesting a refund of his business license which Refund he never used. (27) A eport was presented from the Business License Sup isor, Motion x The req at for refund was approved. All Ayes 4. A letter fro Richard N. Callahan, Jr. was pre- Towing Licen sented appeals the denial of his application (70) for 4 towing,lice se. Richard Callahan addr sed the Council and asked for,approval of the pe 't., G. Wayne Miller, Manager of & W Towing, and Mr. Callahan's employer, addressed he Council and supported Mr. Callahan's request. Motion x Councilman Cox made a motion to overr a the denial and to approve the permit on a s -month probation. Mayor Pro Te% Hart asked that the motion be amended to continue the item to July 14 before taking,action, which was accepted by the maker of the motion. L11 Ayes A vote was taken on Councilman Cox's amended motion, which motion carried, and the item was continued to July 14. 5. A report was presented from the Transportation Gen Plan Amlr Plan Citizens Advisory Committee regarding pro- (45) posed changes to the Circulation Element of the General PYan,� ems} otion x The staff was directed to include the following 11 Ayes items in the next General Plan Amendment: (a) Deletion of the secondary designation for Balboa Boulevard easterly of B Street; and (b) Deletion of the secondary designation for Marguerite Avenue between Coast Highway and Fifth Avenue. Volume 34 - Page 151 se i CIS' OF NEWPORT BE&H COUNCILMEN t\�A\ MINUTES ROLL CALL''C \V\VT V June 23 1980 INDEX Airport Texaco, Inc. 4678 Campus Drive Newport Beach Reports dated May 13 and 14, 1980 were presented from the Police Department with copies of the applications, Mayor Heather closed the hearing after it was determined that no one desired to be heard. Motion x Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity All Ayes were granted to Ken's Mobil Service, Brown's New- port Center Shell and Airport Texaco, Inc. E. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: 1. Ordinance No. 1857, being, Garbage/Refuse & Cuttings AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0-1857 AMENDING SECTION 6.04.190 OF THE NEWPORT (44) BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE THEREFROM THE PROHIBITION OF DISPOSING OF REFUSE, GARBAGE AND CUTTINGS IN PUBLIC CONTAINERS BY OCCU- PANTS OF RESIDENCES AND BUSINESS ESTABLISH- MENTS, was resented for second reading. Bobby ovell addressed the Council and stated that the bin seemed to be helping the situation on Ocean Fr t. otion x Ordinance 1857 was adopted. 11 Ayes F. CONTINUED BUS NESS: Lion x 1. (District 7) Co cilman Cox's appointment of Elana Bicycle Trails All Ayes Peters as a membe of the Bicycle Trails Citizens CAC Advisory Committee for a term ending December 31, (24) 1980 was confirmed. G. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented om the Marine Department Harbor Permit regarding an amendment to Harbor Permit Policies, Policies/H-1 adding paragraph "D" to Se tion 11, as follows: (51) "Maintenance dredging baywa d of residential and commercial property shall be he responsibility of the Harbor Permittee for t zone delineated by prolongations of upland side property lines and the U.S. Project Line." Motion x Council Policy H-1, "Harbor Permit olicies," was All Ayes amended to add paragraph "D" to Sec on 11 as proposed. 2. A report was presented from the Plannin Depart- Planning/Q-1 ment concerning an amendment to Council licy Q- (67) "General Plan," changing the filing deadline for developer -initiated General Plan amendments. Volume 34 - Page 150 0 • June 23, 1980 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G-5 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF GENERAL PLAN On March 26, 1979 the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee submitted recommendations to the City Council (copy attached) on changes to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The City Council voted to accept the Committee's recommendations at that time. It has come to the Committee's attention that General Plan Amendment 79-2, currently in the EIR review process, does not reflect certain of those recommendations. • Two specific recommendations which are not included in GPA 79-2 are the deletion of the secondary designation for Balboa Boulevard easterly of B Street and the deletion of the secondary designation for MarguerAe Avenue between Coast Highway and Fifth Avenue. The Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee recommends that the City Council direct staff to include these changes in the next General Plan Amendment. Schroeder Chairman OES:RME:ma Attachment • TO: II // 2 gv �J� M l'IFCr�l 2 DATE coc�X MAYOR 17 LIBRARY 0 COUNCIL 13 MARINE ❑ MANAGER CTPARKS & REC. 0 ASST. TO MGR. LIPERSONNEL 11 ATTORNEY 'PLANNING 13BUILDING 17 POLICE Q CITY CLERK LIPUBLIC WORKS 11 DATA PROCESS, 11 PURCHASING is FINANCE n TRAFFIC 13 FIRE A UTILITIES CI GENERAL SERV. FOR: ACTION & DISPOSITION tj FILE tlINFORMATION tl REVIEW & COMMENT k1 RETURN REMARKS: F p,C / ,50 To FROM: March 26, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2 CTO: CITY COUNCILmay G-$' FROM: Transportation Plan,Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVISION This Committee has devoted its efforts for the past 22 months to reviewing the existing Circulation Element of the General Plan. The procedure followed was: 1. Each individual identified suggested changes he, or she, felt desirable. 2. Pros and Cons for each of the suggested changes were identified. 3. Following general discussion of each of the changes, the Committee voted on each of the alternatives. 4. Alternatives receiving majority agreement are forwarded to you as recommendations of the Committee. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction: The committee unanimously agreed with the basic concept that the existing Circulation Element, which was developed after years of Engineering analysis and citizen input, is basically sound and should be left unchanged with the following exceptions: 1. Defer any implementation of University Drive until a thorough traffic study is made of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway. 2. Conduct an Engineering Study of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway as soon as possible to determine if the combined capacity of these two roadways, improved with creative engineering solutions, is sufficient to handle realistically projected traffic demand. 3. Reject any alternatives for a grade separation at Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway, specifically alternatives A2 and A3. (Ref: Memo from Staff to Planning Commission, dated December 15, 1978.) 4. Eliminate parking in Corona del Mar from MacArthur to the City Limits with appropriate striping for traffic lanes during the period 7-9 A.M. Mon. -Fri., and 12-6 P.M. Sunday, and no limitation on Saturday. It is further recommended that the Council actively pursue the investigation of expanded off-street parking in Corona del Mar. City Council -2- March 26, 1979 5. It is recommended that the City Council take whatever steps are necessary to encourage the development of 19th Street in Costa Mesa with a river crossing, then terminating at P.C.H. to carry traffic from the Costa Mesa Freeway. 6. Eliminate the secondary road designation on Balboa Boulevard east of B Street. 7. Eliminate Marguerite as a secondary road from Pacific Coast Highway to 5th Avenue. 8. Add the following wording to the "Basic Concept" section of the Circulation Element: a. A bicycle trail and pedestrian trail system should be developed to provide bicycle and pedestrian movement throughout the City; offroad where possible; and where they must share right-of-way with roads, the road design should be such to maintain safety. b. An immediate effort should be made to determine optimum locations for transit stops and each subsequent road improvement should include improved indented areas and attractive pickup stations. These facilities should be implemented on existing roads where possible. c. An immediate effort should be made to improve heavy automobile congestion in recreational areas. 9. The City Council is requested to review the recommendation on the San Joaquin Hills corridor as promulgated by this Committee, dated 5/10/76. 10. it is recommended that the City not implement any grade separations with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches overpass. 11. The Committee recommends that the Council implement the existing and proposed road plan as amended by TPCAC recommendations as soon as possible when financially feasible. 12. The maximum roadway in the City shall be limited to six lanes and the maximum intersection shall be limited to nine lanes, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. eHV*.Clucas, airman RHC:dcc .4 3�7 July 13, 1979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Background Planning Commissi*Aeeting July 19, 1979 Agenda Item No. 7 LC-N �RD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LFli �6 -, 00 NOT =z4OVE ' r Planning Commission Department of Community Development scussion ement d Land atives On November 27, 1978, the City Council initiated a review of the Cir- culation Element of the General Plan which included a study of land use alternatives for the major vacant parcels, including the P-C's excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The first phase of this study, dealing with acceptability of the cir- culation system and tentative intersection design, has been completed. On March 26, 1979, the City Council adopted guidelines for the Circu- lation Element based on recommendations submitted by the Transportation Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee. These include, in part, the following general guidelines: 1. The City should not implement any grade separations with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches overpass. 2. The maximum roadway in the City shall be limited to six lanes, and the maximum intersection shall be limited to nine lanes, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. The land use portion of this study requires the Planning Commission to provide the City Council with a series of five density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels, including the development allowed by the existing General Plan, Low Density Residential, and three other alternatives to be determined by the Planning Commission. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission provide alternate sup- porting data, both positive and negative, with each alternative. Specific criteria should include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Traffic considerations—"�tS?Jr`a 'ice ti 2. Openness of vista or view - G.✓tip"-�� 3. City image 4. Cost/benefit ratio 5. Private property rights 6. Public rights TO: Planning Commission - 2. 7. Sewer capacity 8. Energy requirements 9. Implications for airport 10. Social acceptance Land Use Alternatives At the Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 1979, possible land use alternatives were discussed. Since that meeting, the Commission has been presented with some tentative information on projected traffic volumes comparing the "no growth" and "existing General Plan" options in the computer traffic model. In addition, intersection capacity utilization information has been prepared by the Public Works Department for use by the Planning Commission in consideration of land use alter- natives. Staff has prepared some revised land use alternatives for fifteen selected sites for consideration by the Commission. There will be more informa- tion available on the impacts associated with these alternatives at the time of the Planning Commission meeting. It is recommended that the Planning Commission analyze the proposed alternatives, and any others that appear appropriate. As soon as the Commission is reasonable satisfied, it should make appropriate recom- mendations to the City Council. . Following consideration by the Council, amendments will be prepared as needed for the General Plan. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by &W. A e ROBERT P. LENAR , Acting Advance Planning Administrator RPL/kk Attachments 9. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1979^ Agenda Item No. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE COPY July 13, 1979 DO NOT REMOV9 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Circulation Element Review and -Land Discussion Background On November 27, 1978, the City Council initiated a review of the Cir- culation Element of the General Plan which included a study of land use alternatives for the major vacant parcels, including the P-C's excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The first phase of this study, dealing with acceptability of the cir- culation system and tentative intersection design, has been completed. On March 26, 1979, the City Council adopted guidelines for the Circu- lation Element based on recommendations submitted by the Transportation Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee. These include, in part, the following general guidelines: 1. The City should not implement any grade separations with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches overpass. 2. The maximum roadway in the City shall be limited to six lanes, and the maximum intersection shall be limited to nine lanes, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. The land use portion of this study requires the Planning Commission to provide the City Council with a series of five density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels, including the development allowed by the existing General Plan, Low Density Residential, and three other alternatives to be determined by the Planning Commission. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission provide alternate sup- porting data, both positive and negative, with each alternative. Specific criteria should include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Traffic considerations 2. Openness of vista or view 3. City image 4. Cost/benefit ratio 5. Private property rights 6. Public rights I 0 1* 0 General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Uses: Site Considerations LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 1 "KOLL CENTER" Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities; Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; Retail and Service Commercial; and General Industry. P-C with adopted Development Text. 159 acres, approximately 26 acres vacant Institutional, Commercial, Office, General Industry. 2,710,620 sq.ft. allowed by P-C Text. Currently there is 1,811,253 sq.ft. of development on the site. The P-C Development Text allows an additional 899,367 sq.ft. No traffic phasing plan has been adopted to date. Alternate Uses 1. 50% Reduction (based on October 1, 1978 total remaining 1,058,863 sq.ft.) - 2,181,189 sq.ft. total (369,936 sq.ft. additional) 2. 20% Reduction - 2,493,847 sq.ft. total 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 2,181,189 sq.ft. - Assuming "net buildable acreage" would be approxi- mately 25% less than the 13 acre total, 100 DU's would be allowed 4. Med./High Density Residential - 200 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 5. Low Density Residential - 80 DU's (@ 4 DU's per net buildable acre) 1. KOLL CENTER I General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Uses: Al ternate Uses LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 2 "JAMBOREE/MacARTHUR" _ Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial. Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted 2 acres Office and Retail Commercial. 1'7,y�S' 34;&58-sq.ft. could be allowed at- 2 :4- density 8,? 13 1. 50% Reduction - 1 023-sq.ft. Office and Commercial 13,94� 2. 20% Reduction - 27�88 sq.ft. Office and Commercial 5j_713 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 1 , 2i sq.ft. Office and Commercial 8 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 4. Med./High Density Residential - 16 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 5. Low Density Residential - 6 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) 2. JAMBOREE/MACARTHUR, C L General Information LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 3 "SAN DIEGO CREEK" i 1. General Plan Designation:, Retail and Service•Commercial (north- erly 12 acres) General, Industry (southerly 47 acres). 2. -Existing Zoning: Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted. 3. Site Area: 59 acres 4. Allowable Uses: Commercial, Industrial, Office S AJOOS8 1-s828;69frsq.ft. could be allowed at .&density. Alternate Uses 1. 50% Reduction - 514,008 sq.ft. 2. 20% Reduction - 822,413 sq.ft. 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 514,008 s .ft. •221 DU's ?@ 10 per net buildable acre) 4. Med./High Density Residential - 442 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) -5. Low Density Residential - 17y DU 6. Desilting Basin -..Desalting Basi (southerly 47 209,088 sq.ft. mercial (north 12 acres) 3. SAN DIEGO C General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Uses: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 4 "NORTH FORD" General Industry, Office, and Retail and Service Commercial. P-C with adopted Development Text. 126 acres, approximately 68 acres vacant. Commercial, Industrial, Office 900,000 sq.ft.-allowed by P-C Text. Site Considerations Currently there is 129,260,sq.ft. of development on the site. The P-C Text allows an additional 770,740 sq.ft. Only 30% of this additional square footage is allowed pridr to the adoption of a Traffic Phasing Plan. Alternate Uses 1: 50% Reduction - 514,630 sq:ft. total (3 2. 20% Reduction - 745,852 sq.ft. total 3. Commercial/Residential Mix - 514,630 sq 255 DU's ( 10 per net buildable acre) 4. Med./High Density Residential - 510 DU' (@ 10 per buildable acre) 5. Low Density Residential - 204 DU's (@ 4 per net build able acre) 4. NORTH FOR General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Uses: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 5 "AERONUTRONIC FORD" General Industry, Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial, and Residential P-C - no standards adopted (existing development as per use permit) 193 acres, 102 acres vacant Office, Industrial and Residential Site Considerations The existing industrial complex includes 962,400 sq.ft. of development. An additional 1,691,000 sq.ft. is allowable under the existing use permit. The General Plan was amended in February 1976 to allow residential as an alternate use on the undeveloped portion of the site. Alternate Uses 1. Commercial/Residential Mix - 2. Reduced Commercial/Residential Mix - 3. 50% Reduction 368,600 sq.ft. additional 450 DU's 261,000 sq.ft. additional 250 DU's - .,845,500 sq.ft. additional 4. 20% Reduction - 1,352,800 sq.ft. additional 5. Med./High Density Residential - 765 DU's T@ 10 per net buildable acre) 6. Low Density Residential - 306 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) 5. AERONUTRONIC- FORD LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 6 "NEWPORT CENTER" General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Uses (78-2).: Alternate Uses 1. 50% Reduction - decrease future allow- able as follows: Medical & Office -- 749,178 sq.ft. Commercial - 29,375 sq.ft. Theatre - 1,325 seats Residential - 236 DU's Civic - 5,000 sq.ft. 2. 20% Reduction - decrease future allow- able as follows: Medical & Office - 299,671 sq.ft. Commercial - 11,750 sq.ft. Theatre - 580 seats Residential - 94 DU's Civic - 2,000 sq.ft. 3. Med./High Density Residential - 915 DU's on selected sites 6. NEWPORT CENTER 4. Low Density Residential - 366 DU's on selected sites Retail and Service Commercial; Adminis- trative, Professional and Financial Commercial; and Residential. Mixed - Totai development limited by General Plan Amendment 78-2. 330 acres, approximately 122 acres vacant. Existing uses include the following: Office & Medical - 2,251,644 sq.ft. Commercial - 1,191,250 sq.ft. Theatre - 1,750 seats Hotel - 377 rooms Residential - 67 DU's Civic - 96,000 sq.ft. Automotive - 5 acres Golf Course - 18 holes Tennis Club - 24 courts Future additional includes: Office & Medical - 1,498,356 sq.ft. Commercial - 58,750 sq.ft. Theatre - 2,650 seats Residential - 471 DU's General Information 1. General Plan: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 7 "BAYVIEW LANDING" Recreation and Marine Commercial, Medium Density Residential Unclassified (U) - no standards adopted 19 acres 4. Allowable Uses: Commercial Recreation, Tourist Com- mercial, 36 e66_b Ft�ov'1 hrul-bwed-at--4� -dens44-y�Residential, 85 DU's maximum. NO Vh7wc-NC-X g0�OD01�fQfv IGT Cv�mvn CltAL Alternate Uses 4FrS I' ---+-) DiswsS,tp +per T*,.; FxofLfrY 4S, 000 Ow141ep. , 1. 50% Reduction - +65;533'sq.ft. Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial. 17,11000 2. 20% Reduction ­2 sq.ft. Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial. '.lS'� 00'0 3. Commercial Residential Mix --16.5,533 sq.ft. Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial. 71 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 4. Med./High Density Residential - 142 DU's (@'10 per net buildable acre) 5. Low Density Residential - 57 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 7 BAYVIEW LANDING u General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. ,Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Uses: 0 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Si to No. 8 "CASTAWAYS"' Recreational and Marine Commercial/ Medium Density Residential. Unclassified (U) -.no standards adopted 65 Acres Northerly.40 Acres - Residential with 225 DU's maximum - ij��roo Southerly 25 Acres--435,609-sq. ft. CL y�-(@-4-)-of Commercial Recreation or Tourist Commercial, or a combination of Commercial -and 100 DU's. Alternate Uses 1. 50% Reduction - 113 DU's /���� 44,g B� sq. Commercial or a combination of�Commercial and 50 DU!s lo 2. 20% Reduction - 180 DU's 3 v 34sq.ft. Commercial or a combination of�Commercial and 80 DU's 3. Commercial)/Residential Mix•= 435;699-sq:44aC-r- r T ips •4. A © '0 )_ Low Density Residential - Assuming "buildable acreage would be approxi- mately 25% less than the 65 acre total ... 195 DU's would be allowed a 4 DU's per build- able acre. 8. CASTAWAYS (nGr_tneriT-qu wares') . J /n nncr th id cl_� � LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 9 "WESTBAY" General Information l.. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Uses: Alternate Uses 1. Open Space 2. Low Density Residential 3. Residential/Open Space - 4. Low Density Residential/Open Space - Preserve 50% of the site as open space. Allow approxi- mately 106 units on remaining 50%. 9. WESTBAY Recreational and Environmental Open Space/Medium Density Residential P-C - no standards adopted 71 Acres Open*Space 348 DU's Consider possibility of public acquisition or dedication with some density transfer. Assuming the "net buildable acreage" of the site would be approximately 53 acres... 212 DU's would be allowed. Preserve 50% of the site as -open space. Concentrate 212 DU's on remaining 50%. E General Information 1. General Plan.Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Uses: Alternate Uses 1. Open Space 2. Low Density Residential LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 10 "EASTBLUFF REMNANT" Recreation and Environmental Open Space/ Medium Density Residential. R-3-B 8 Acres Open Space 42 DU's Consider possibility of public acquisition or dedication as open space. Assuming the "net buildable acreage" of the site would be approximately 6 acres:.. 24 DU's would be allowed. n LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 11 "NEWPORTER NORTH" General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Use: Alternate Uses 1. Low Density.Residential - 2. Residential/Open Space - 3. Low Density Residential/Open Space - 11. NEWPORTER NORTH Medium Density Residential P-C - no standards adopted 88 Acres Residential - 440 DU's 264 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) Preserve 50% of the site as open space. Concentrate 264 DU's on the remaining 50%. Preserve 50% of the site as open space. Allow 132 DU's on the remaining 50%. • • LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 12 "BIG CANYON" General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Uses: Alternate Uses 1. Med./High Density Residential 2. Low Density Residential 12. BIG CANYON Multi -Family Residential P-C - with adopted Development Text 15 Acres 160 DU's 90 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 45 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) j LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 13 "BAYWOOD EXPANSION" General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Use: Alternate Uses 1. Med./High Density Residential 2. Low Density Residential Multi -Family Reservation P-C - with adopted Development Text 9 Acres Residential - 140 DU's - 68 DU's (@ 10 per net buildable acre) 27 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) 13. QAYWOOD 11 0 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Site No. 14 "FIFTH AVENUE'PARCELS" General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. Allowable Use: Alternate Uses 1. Low Density Residential 14. FIFTH AVENUE Medium Density Residential P-C and R-1-B 36 Acres Residential - 204 DU's 108 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) • .• General Information 1. General Plan Designation: 2. Existing Zoning: 3. Site Area: 4. - Allowable Uses: Alternate Uses 1. Low Density Residential LAND USE ALTERNATES Site No. 15 "BEECO PROPERTY" 15. BECCO Medium Density Residential - subject to a Specific Area Plan P-C (50 acres in City); A-1 (100 acres in County) 150 Acres Residential - 900 DU's 450 DU's (@ 4 per net buildable acre) 0 o .=OUNTY OF CO Murray Storm DIREC OR G E ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA Jim Hewicker, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Mr. Hewicker: May 22, 198 �f rFt.;�� �9 MAY 2 7198©� OALIF. �. I 8342308 T ELEPHONE1 AREA CODE 714 MAILING ADDRESS! P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 FILE Our Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the EIR for the upcoming General Plan Amendment (GPA) of the Newport Beach Circulation Element. The proposed changes identified on Pages I 3-4 in the EIR either currently exist on the County MPAH or are administrative in nature. Accordingly we will process all of the items with the exception of one,as technical refinements to the County MPAH in our General Plan Circulation Element Amandment 80-2 scheduled for Board of Supervisors action on November 5, 1980. The exception noted above relates to the change of classification of the Avocado/MacArthur one-way couplet from secondary on the County plan to primary standards on the City plan. This item will be handled as a City requested item utilizing the City's environmental documentation. We have also reviewed the changes proposed by the Newport Beach Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (which we understand your Council has already approved) and offer the following comments: 1. On the subject of deferring implementation of University Drive until a thorough traffic study is made of Bristol and Corona del Mar Freeways, it should be noted that such a study does exist presently. The recently -completed Multimodal Transportation Study projects approximately 217,000 trips/day on Bristol/Corona del Mar Freeway corridor and 37,000 trips/day on the University Drive extension by the year 1995. We strongly believe that such an extension is necessary for efficient and effective east/west traffic movement in the area. 2. On the issue of rejecting a grade separation at Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway, the MMTS projections indicate large turning volumes at this inter- section which would have to be accommodated. Perhaps an alternative to grade separation would be the provision of one-way couplet system similar to Avocado/ MacArthur. -2- 3. We have reservations about eliminating the secondary road designation of Balboa Boulevard east of "B" Street, and Marguerite from Pacific Coast Highway to 5th Avenue. Balboa Boulevard is in essence an arterial cul-de-sac and serves a significant public destination (beaches), thus it fits our working definition of an arterial highway. Despite our reser- vation, we are not, however, adamantly opposed to the proposed deletion if you feel it best suits- the needs of your community. In the case of Marguerite, the proposed elimination does serve an important north/south circulation movement. If the problem is one of neighborhood infiltration by through traffic, then a neighborhood.traffic management plan may be more effective than mere elimination of the road from the plan. I hope that these comments will aid in developing an improved circulation system for Newport Beach. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss any areas of concern and assist in any way we can. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Bedros Enfiedjian of our Transportation Planning staff at 834-6921. Very ////%truly�A�your�s� , p �i17'VU/� M. Storm, Director BAE:rk cc: J. E. Bennett A. C. Bell Rich Edmonston/Newport Beach K. E. Smith BAE zDepartment of Community Development ,C ryp pN DATt: May 23, 1979 TO: Herman Basmaciyan FROM: David Dmohowski RLE COPY DO NOT RE 40UE SUGJLCT: Test of Land Use Alternatives Using Traffic Model in connection with Circulation System Study. Attached for your information are land use data listed by Traffic Analysis Zone for the major undeveloped parcels included in the Circulation System Study. This includes 5 separate land use alternatives for the major sites as a group, ranging from the existing General Plan (78-2) to Low Density Residential (4 DU's/ acre). This data represents th.� total development for each TAZ listed under the five alternatives. For all other TAZ's, the land use data remains the same as the future conditions data. The "No Change" alternative is the same as the General Plan Amendment 78-2 test which is being performed under a separate contract to- gether with the "No Growth" test. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will request testing of one or more additional alternatives, pending their review of the results of the "General Plan Amendment 78-2" and "No Growth" runs. i David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD/dt cc: Traffic Engineer LAND USE DATA FOR CIRCULATION SYSTEM STUDY TESTS Advance Planning Division 5-8-79 • T.A.Z. L.U.C. No Change Comm./Res. Mix 20% Reduction Med./High Density Low Density J 3 1 = General Plan 600 DU's 3 27 ^=5, Amend. 78-2 190 Acres 45 vFCTo ays1 S=12• 325 DU's 264 DU's 45 7 200 Rms - 45 16,000 Sq. Ft. 16,000 Sq. Ft. 45 34 13,080 Sq. Ft. - 53 aEy 1 5, �, 99 DU's 54 U-) = -, np/ 1 5, F. 279 DU's 54 2 A-r-rr rt -D 'fia2� y 99 DU's 54 20 25 Acres 54 40 rk,c p 32,500 Sq. Ft. • 58 Mcwl- 1 440 DU's 440 DU's 352 DU's 58 1Jor-�4- 7 c�rnoC L 390 Rms 390 Rms 390 Rms 58 2 85 29,530 DU's Sq. Ft. 170 DU's 68 DU's 53 10 Rye-,�F..rr 57500 Sq. Ft. 29,530 Sq. Ft. 29,530 So. Ft. 58 15 r-ofi*t,= , 36.8 Acres 12,500 Sq. Ft. - 58 21 '� sg ��- 15 Courts 36.8 Acres 36.3 Acres 58 36 cL--v3 15 Courts 15 Courts 64 3 401 DU's 196 DU's 330 DU's 132 DU's 64 9 care nc-Y-YL�--P- 3.0 Acres 3.0 Acres 3.0 Acres 3.0 Acres 64 10 ft5zT-A LA.RP JT - 13,000 Sq. Ft. 13,000 So. Ft. 5,000 Sq. Ft. 5,000 Sq. Ft. 64 64 12 16 o'Fr-r< ynov t� �JL o✓z� 760,000 Sq. Ft. 713,000 Sq. Ft. 678,000 Sq. Ft. 678,000 Sq. Ft. 64 28 �"P� 96,100 - Sq. Ft. - 96,100 Sq. Ft. 96,100 - Sq. Ft. - 96,100 Sq. Ft.40 64 32 14,000 Sq. Ft. 14,000 Sq. Ft. 14,000 Sq. Ft. 14,000 Sq. Ft. 65 CL-0-* '10`-13 Y' y`c + 225 DU's - 150 DU's 60 DU's 65 12 0tF--tCL 800,000 Sq. Ft. 1,034,706 Sq. Ft. 800,000 Sq. Ft. 800,000 Sq. Ft. 68 O"FuPr, 3 330 DU's - 480 DU's 192 DU's 68 `Q`6 v`L-' 12 arm c•= 73,345 Sq. Ft. 117,352 Sq. Ft. - - 68 15 35,000 Sq. Ft. 40,800 Sq. Ft. - - 70 2 60 DU's P-TtGY�4- ip T.A.Z. L.U.C. No Change Comm./Res. Msx) 20% Reduction Med./High Density i4(,` Low Density 74 2 620 DU's 496 DU's 1020 DU's 408 DU's 74 12 360,000 sq.ft. 288,000 sq.ft. - - 74 15 1100 sq. ft. 1100 sq.ft. 1100 sq.ft. 1100 sq.ft. 74 18 ) pvsTrCty 9120 acres 91.0 acres 91.0 acres 91.0 acres 75 N.finap 2 408 DU's - 680 DU's 272 DU's 75 12 140,000 sq.ft. 140,000 sq.ft. 140,000 sq.ft. 140,000 sq.ft. 75 15 35,000 sq.ft. 28,000 sq.ft. - - 75 18 INDvSTYt.t 19.3 acres 30.9 acres - - 75 26 33,110 sq.ft. 33,110 sq.ft. 33,110 sq.ft. 33,110 sq.ft. 75 27 5vG SI),5,070 sq.ft. 5,070 sq.ft. 5,070 sq.ft. 5,070 sq.ft. 75 34 CYrvrzc,4 26,076 sq.ft. 26,076 sq.ft. 26,076 sq.ft. 26,076 sq.ft. 76 S. Q C/2!G 2 Yi-'trv-vciA-97 13 -L{ 376 DU's 590 DU's 236 DU's 76 7 200 Rms - - 76 15 COvnvn Cr� 40,000 sq.ft. - - 76 18 IO'DUS2 (I rht_ - 77 1 12 DU's 20 DU's 8 DU's 775 22,000 sq.ft. - - 81 Y,uL.LCNTIK 3 130 DU's - 207 DU's 83 DU's 81 7 81 10 R,! -YzA N.r- 48,100 sq.ft. 48,100 sq.ft. 48,100 sq.ft. 48,100 sq.ft. 81 12 0Or-LC�c' 828; 520 sq.ft. 985,840 sq.ft. 566,320 sq.ft. 566,320 sq.ft. 81 15 cVw\Vn e/zc-LA L 2,300 sq.ft. 2,300 sq.ft. 2,300 sq.ft. 2,300 sq.ft. i 82 (I'oLL Qlti 3 sr PLcfK 153 DU's - 243 DU's 97 DU's 82 10 28,300 sq.ft. 28,300 sq.ft. 28,300 sq.ft. 28,300 sq.ft. 82 12 pry-lC ro 925,260 sq.ft. 1,079,940 sq.ft. 587,460 sq.ft. 587,460 sq.ft.0 82 15 CO M w �Vzc-lk; 6,500 sq.ft. 6,500 sq.ft. 6,500 sq.ft. 6,500 sq.ft. 82 18 •1+4tiv &Tiz-"Yr 40.8 acres 40.8 acres 40.8 acres 40.8 acres 82 26 G-ou+T- 90,000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft. 83 ? 1 �, / 60 DU's 85 Ft t-- IQ.LL 1 c5, l' 76 DU's 87 2PYWoos> 3 S` PUe. ' 4-- 90 DU's 36 DU's 95 ? 2 150 Du's - 300 DU's 120 DU's 95 12 0 Fr---1 C�SF 93,367 sq.ft. 149,388 sq.ft. - - 95 15 2,000 sq.ft. • 2,000 sq.ft. - - 1?.30 0 City Council Meetin^ay 14.1979 Agenda Item No. C. Long -Range Improvements i' ram ' '.. ' 3. Alternate for the down coast circulation system D© NrY PIZUOVE . In order to prevent undue impacts on the existing Newport Beach circulation system, it has been considered necessary ,that implementation of the down - coast circulation system be phased in the proper sequence. This matter was reviewed in detail by the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (TPCAC) approximately three years ago, when the Committee studied the proposal for the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. The TPCAC recommendations regarding phasing of both highway improvements and land use development were as follows: "First, establish the Bonita Canyon Bypass connection with the Corona del Mar Freeway and protect the remainder of the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor right,of-way to the San Diego Freeway. Second, extend acquisition.and construction of the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor from Bonita Canyon to the San Diego Freeway in the vicinity of Avery Parkway. Third, construct Culver Drive between the San Joaquin Trans- portation Corridor and Coast Highway. Fourth, extend San Joaquin Hills Road to connect with the Corridor. The Committee further recommends that land use developments in the Southeast Orange County area be coordinated and syn- chronized with the construction of roadways in order to avoid the imposition of unnecessary traffic loads on existing roads. The Committee specifically urges the construction of the above noted roadways prior to or simultaneous with any mayor develop- ment in the TICMAP area." A copy of the report dated May 10, 1976 from TPCAC to the Council is attached for reference. City concerns regarding circulation and land use in the downcoast area have been previously conveyed to the Orange County Planning Commission in conjunction with their consideration of the TICMAP general plan amendments; and to the Coastal Commission in conjunction with the pre- -1- ,V 1P paration of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Many of these concerns have been incorporated in the policy supplement of the general plan adopted by the County. Some of the pertinent requirements included in Section X, Transportation and Circulation, of the policy supplement are as follows: "A. San Joaquin Hills Corridor (10111) To provide a San. Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor connecting Corona Del Mar Freeway with the Los Angeles - San Diego corridor and capable of satisfying regional and locally generated automobile and public transit demands. C. Corridor Dedication Requirements (10111111) To require the dedication of the San Joaquin Hills Trans- portation Corridor right of way from the Corona Del Mar Freeway to the Laguna Canyon Road and construction of a two lane road between the Corona Del Mar Freeway and Cnly All, except for an extension of medium density acent to existing Cameo Shores development, E. North -South Routes (101121) To design the north -south routes, Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Road, so they serve the inland areas of the coastal community, provide coastal access alternatives to MacArthur Boulevard and Laguna Canyon Road, and provide scenic opportunities. H. Local Circulation Design (101126) To design the community and local circulation systems to mini- mize the impact of local traffic on the surrounding arterial system. 1. Road -Transit Design (101127) To design roads to complement the public transportation system and provide adequate right-of-way to accommodate public transit on all designated arterial highways. J. Culver Drive (1011211) To require the dedication of Culver Drive right-of-way (Pacific Coast Highway to San Joaquin Transportation Corridor) and the construction of a two-lane road throughout the right-of-way, as a minimum condition for approval of development plans in area A, except for an extension of medium density residential develop- ment adjacent to Cameo Shores. -2- 0. San Joaquin Hills Road (1011216) The above requirements will become a part of the Local Coastal Plan un, less specifically modified by the Coastal Commission. As of the present date, the Coastal Commission staff recommendations contemplate inclusion of the requirements in the LCP. The Coastal Commission staff has, how- ever, recommended that Sand Canyon Avenue be downgraded from the pro- posed primary arterial highway classification to a 2-lane local street. The City is on record supporting adequate capacity on Sand Canyon Avenue, and regarding the other concerns of substantial importance. These con- cerns are expressed in various letters to the County and to the Regional and State Coastal Commissions. Copies of letters dated February 15, 1979 to the Regional Commission and March 12, 1979 to the State Commission are attached for reference. RECOMMENDATION A. Either that the City participate actively in the development of the Local Coastal Plan for the downcoast area, with particular emphasis on: 1. Phasing the circulation system so that San Joaquin Hills Road is not extended beyond the City limits until the Corona Del Mar Freeway is completed, the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor is constructed with adequate capacity from a connection to the Corona del Mar Free- way, Bristol Street Corridor to the downcoast area, and Culver Drive is constructed between Coast Highway and -3- the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. 2. Adequate capacity exists on both Sand Canyon Avenue and Culver Drive to enable traffic to leave the coastal area and utilize the inland freeway system without a need for ex- cessive dependence on Pacific Coast Highway. OM B. Consideration be given to permanently closing San Joaquin Hills Road at the City limits regardless of plans for the corridor, the Corona Del Mar Freeway and the other roadways. It is difficult to see ad- vantages to the City of connecting San Joaquin Hills Road as noted in "A" above. It could only add traffic loads to already overcrowded streets in Newport Beach. Whatever relief it would offer to Coast Highway traffic loads would be far overridden by added traffic from downcoast development impacting both Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Any objective consideration of present and future traffic loads on both the San Diego and Santa Ana Freeways makes questionable the feasibility of significant downcoast development. Aalc PAUL RYCKOFF Mayor -4- 1( E TO: CITY COUNCIL 0 �- APPRO'dLD BY CITY COUNCIL DATE, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H7(a) FROM: Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS.ON THE SAN JOAQUIN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR In In accordance with the direction of the City•Council and Resolution No. 8659, the Transportation Plan Citizens - Advisory Committee has studied the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study (SEOCCS) extensively over the last.month and one half. We have received presentations. from the following: Herman Basmaciyan (Transportation Consultant), Bill Darnell (City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer), Tom Jenkins (OCTD), Gordon Jones (The Irvine Company), Mayor Donald McInnis, Richard Muncell (Assistant Director, Environ- mental Management Agency), and Bill Soto (The Irvine Company). We have reviewed the following documents, 1. Newport Beach Land Use Element of the General Plan 2. SEOCCS Summary Report 3. Newport Beach Traffic Study Phases I, II, III 4. Circula-tion Element of Newport Beach General Plan 5. BASICO Study Summary of Resident's Viewpoint of Traffic in Newport Beach 6. Proposed Amendment 76-1 to the Circulation Element of the Orange County General Plan, and have contacted all known Community Associations. As a result of the Committee's review and discussions, we submit the following recommendations: 1. The adoption of the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor as generally shown in SEOCCS and as proposed by the Environmental Management Agency in the April 19, 1976 Amendment 76-1 to the Circulation Element of the Orange County General Plan. 2. The early implementation of such facilities to accommodate current and future projected trans- portation needs for vehicles and other modes of May 10, 1976 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H7(a) transportation within this Corridor 3. The implementation of the San Joaquin Trans- portation Corridor should commence immediately and be of sufficient width and design to protect the health and well-being of residents who may live in proximity to the Corridor. 4. Of prime importance is the phasing of the right-of-way acquisition and road construction. The Committee strongly recommends the following sequence: First, establish the Bonita Canyon Bypass connection with the Corona del Mar Freeway and protect the remainder of the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor right-of-way to the San Diego Freeway. Second, extend acquisition and constructs -on of t'-he�an Joaquin Transportation Corridor from Bonita Canyon to the San Diego Freeway in the vicinity of Avery,Parkway. Third, construct Culver Drive between the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor and Coast Hi g'hway. Fourth, extend San Joaquin Hills Road to connect wsth the Corridor, The Committee further recommends that land use devel-opments in the Southeast Orange County area be coordinated and synchronized with the construction of roadways in order to avoid the imposition of unnecessary traffic loads on existing roads. The Committee specifically urges the construction of the above noted road- ways prior to or simultaneous with any major development in the TICMAP area. '��✓ C�G',GP Iti chard "Clucas Committee Chairman 5. RHC:bcd 0 C NOTE -'EXISTING- MEANS THAT A FACILITY ACTUALLY EXISTS ON THE GROUND EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE CONSTRUCTED TO FULL STANDARD INO•CATEO BY CLASSIFICATION { I 1 f t ! I CITY O` %E14PO T BE/.Cli Trans;ortatiOn Plan Citizen= Advisory Committee Recommendations FIGURE V14 LEGEND n u LOCATIONS OF FACILITIES ARE MERELY INDICATIVE OF GENERAL CORRIDORS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE TRAVEL DEMANDS THEY ARE NOT PRECISE ALIGNMENTS LOCAL ACCESS ROADS ARE NOT SHOWN T -EXISTING FREEWAY REQUIRED ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION COAR'OOP P CMSTING MAJOR ARTERIAL wauu•P R. REQUIRED ADDITIONAL MAJOR ARTERIAL -EXISTING PRIMARY ARTERIAL ....... REQUIRED ADDITIONAL PRIMAPY ARYEP-AL -EXISTING SECONDARY ART!P•-. -------EOYIPE. AODITIONA: SECOVO.a• 1 I I ' i 1 I 0( Do V-0T rD CAE; 41.4 ot l 1- ti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 March 12, 1979 Mr. Dorill Wright,'Chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street - 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Re: Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program Dear Mr. Wright: The purpose of this letter is to express the position of the City of Newport Beach regarding the proposed Local Coastal. Program for the Irvine Coast. As stated in previous corres- pondence, the City of Newport Beach has been greatly concerned with four general issues: 1. The intensity of development proposed for the Irvine. Coast, and in particular, the impacts of this develop- ment on adjacent residential neighborhoods in Newport Beach. 2. The impact of the proposed development on the City's street system, especially Coast Highway through Corona del. Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road. 3. The impact on physical support systems and public services. The considerable expected environmental impacts, including loss of open space and natural habitat, alteration of natural. landforms, and potential effects on air and water quality. These concerns are addressed in greater detail below. Intensity of Proposed Development Approximately 4,000 acres of the Irvine Coast adjoining Newport Beach are within the City's Sphere of Influence. A substantial majority of the 11,000 dwellings proposed would be located in this area, with densities ranging from two to twenty-eight dwelling units per acre. Due to the scale and intensity of City Hall - 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. California 9.9663 y +TMr. Do rill Wright, Airman ( • California Coastal Commission Page 2. March 12, 1979 development proposed here, the City of Newport Beach requests that residential development should be limited to the lowest level which will not cause adverse impacts on the City's street system. • With respect to commercial. uses, •particular.ly'those of a regional or tourist -oriented nature, development intensity should be limited to the lowest reasonable level taking into account impacts on the City's street system. In our view, the amount -of land area designated for tourist commercial in the proposed plan is excessive in terms of potential traffic impact on adjacent com- munities and in terms of the environmental carrying capacity of this area. Circulation and -Phasing of Development Due to the substantial.traffic impact of the proposed plan, par- ticularly with regard to Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and San Joaquin Hills Road, the City requests that any development in the Irvine Coast be phased in strict compliance with the road- way improvement plan. No connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to the downcoast area road system should be permitted until sufficient capacity exists along the transportation corridor alignment and Culver Drive to accommodate the projected develop- ment. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is essential to relieving congestion on Coast Highway. Also the north -south arterial system connecting with the Corridor, including Culver Drive and Sand Canyon Road, needs to be of sufficient capacity and design so as to attract trips away from Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. The Fifth Avenue Corridor in'Corona del Mar is not an alternative route available to relieve traffic on Coast Highway as a result of development in the downcoast area. The City of Newport Beach has developed a computerized traffic model which is capable of assessing the impact of proposed development in the Irvine Coast planning area. We would be happy to furnish the results of this study when they become available in the near future. The traffic model could be made available for use in the Coastal Commiss.ion's further review of development proposals in the Irvine Coast. Impacts on Support Systems The proposed development will require significant investment in physical support systems such as roads, sewers, and crater. Mr. Dorill Wright, Chairman California Coastal Commission Page 3. March 12, 1979 These may have an impact in Newport Beach. Also, public services and school facilities required will impose additional tax burdens in this region. Environmental.Impacts The proposed development will alter the scenic value' of the Irvine Coast and result in the loss of natural habitat areas. On this issue, the City of Newport Beach has supported public.acquisition of all or a portion of the Irvine Coast for recreation and open space purposes. It should be recognized, however, that public acquisition would not eliminate -the -need to provide adequate road- way improvements in this area to assure that streets in Newport Beach are not further impacted by regional or -recreational traffic. Regarding alteration of natural landforms and grading policies, development in the Irvine Coast could cause significant damage to Buck Gully and Morning Canyon due to erosion generated by urban runoff. Grading practices would also have an impact on ocean water quality. The City would urge the strictest applica- tion of grading and erosion controls to preserve riparian habitat areas and natural drainage courses, including Buck Gully and Morn- ing Canyon in Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach has welcomed the opportunity to comment on the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. Vie hope to participate in future public hearings before the Coastal Commission on this matter. Very truly yours, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PAUL RYCKOFF, Mayor PR/kk .t,, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -7, OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 February 15, 1979 Dr. Donald Wilson, Chairman South Coast Regional Commission 666 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 3107 Long Beach, CA 90801 Dear Dr. Wilson: FILE COPY to NUr REMOVE RE: City Position on San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Our letter of February 6, 1979 indicated our support for the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and its connection to the Corona del Mar Freeway. In conjunction with this, we consider it vital that other aspects of the transportation network serving the downcoast area be completed, including the remainder of the'San Joaquin Corridor to the San Diego Freeway and completion of Culver Drive from the Coast Highway north. The City of Plewpo& Beach would experience serious impact from.any use of San Joaquin Hills Road from the south without completion of the above improvements prior to completion of development. Very truly yours, PAUL RYCKOFF Mayor PR:,jmb City 14111 0 3-200 INc;.por! Boulevard, ccn•port Brach, California 9266-3 LAND USE DATA FOR CIRCULATION SYSTEM STUDY TESTS z 6 u3 m m s mm Advance Planning Division 5-8-79 . L ' T.A.Z. L.U.C. No Change Comm./Res. Mix 20% Reduction Med./High Density Low Density 3 1 General Plan 600 DU's 3 27 Amend. 78-2 190 Acres 45 1 325 DU's 264 DU's 45 7 200 Rms - 45 16,000 Sq. Ft. 16,000 Sq. Ft. 45 34 13,080 Sq. Ft. - 53 1 99 DU's 54 1 279 DU's 54 2 99 DU's 54 20 25 Acres 54 40 32,500 Sq. Ft. 58 1 440 390 DU's Rms 440 DU's 352 DU's 58 85 DU's 390 Rms 390 Rms 2 29,530 Sq. Ft. 170 DU's 68 DU's 58 10 57,500 Sq. Ft' 29,530 Sq. Ft. 29,530 So. Ft. 58 15 36.8 Acres 12,500 Sq. Ft. - 58 21 15 Courts 36.8 Acres 36.8 Acres 58 36 15 Courts 15 Courts 64 3 401 DU's 196 DU's 330 DU's 132 DU's 64 9 3.0 Acres 3.0 Acres 3.0 Acres . 3.0 Acres 64 10 13,000 Sq. Ft. 13,000 So. Ft. 5,000 Sq. Ft. 5,000 Sq. Ft. 64 12 760,000 Sq. Ft. 713,000 Sq. Ft. 678,000 Sq. Ft. 678,000 Sq. Ft. 64 64 16 28 - 96,100 Sq. Ft. - 96,100 Sq. Ft. _ 96,100 Sq. Ft. - 96,100 Sq. Ft.� 64 32 14,000 Sq. Ft. 14,000 Sq. Ft. 14,000 Sq. Ft. 14,000 Sq. Ft. 65 3 225 DU's - 150 DU's 60 DU's 65 12 800,000 Sq. Ft. 1,034,706 Sq. Ft. 800,000 Sq. Ft. 800,000 Sq. Ft. 68 3 330 DU's - 480 DU's 192 DU's 68 12 73,345 Sq. Ft. 117,352 Sq. Ft. - - 68 15 35,000 Sq. Ft. 40,800 Sq. Ft. - - 70 2 60 DU's T.A.Z. L.U.C. No Change Comm./Res. Mix 20% Reduction Med./High Density Low Density 74 2 620 DU's 496 DU's 1020 DU's 408 DU's 74 12 360,000 sq.ft. 288,000 sq.ft.' - - 74 15 1100 sq. ft. 1100 sq.ft. 1100 sq.ft. 1100 sq.ft. 74 18 91.0 acres 91.0 acres 91.0 acres 91.0 acres 75 2 408 DU's - 680 DU's 272 DU's 75 12 140,000 sq.ft. 140,000 sq.ft. 140,000 sq.ft. 140,000 sq.ft. 75 15 35,000 sq.ft. 28,000 sq.ft. - - 75 18 19.3 acres 30.9 acres - - 75 26 33,110 sq:ft. 33,110 sq.ft. 33,110 sq.ft. 33,110 sq.ft. 75 27 5,070 sq.ft. 5,070 sq.ft. 5,070 sq.ft. 5,070 sq.ft. 75 34 26,076 sq.ft. 26,076 sq.ft. 26,076 sq.ft. 26,076 sq.f 76 2 376 DU's 590 DU's 236 DU's 76 7 200 Rms - - 76 15 40,000 sq.ft. - - 76 18 - 77 1 12 DU's 20 DU's 8 DU's 77 15 22,000 sq.ft. - - 81 3 130 DU's - 207 DU's 83 DU's 81 7 - - - _ 81 10 48,100 sq.ft. 48,100 sq.ft. 48,100 sq.ft. 48,100 sq.ft. 81 12 828, 520 sq.ft. 985,840 sq.ft. 566,320 sq.ft. 566,320 sq.ft. 81 15 2,300 sq.ft. 2,300 sq.ft. 2,300 sq.ft. 2,300 sq.ft. 82 3 153 DU's - 243 DU's 97 DU's 82 10 28,300 sq.ft. 28,300 sq.ft. 28,300 sq.ft. 28,300 sq.ft 82 12 925,260 sq.ft. 1,079,940 sq.ft. 587,460 sq.ft. 587,460 sq.,t,. 82 15 6,500 sq.ft. 6,500 sq.ft. 6,500 sq.ft. 6,500 sq.ft. 82 18 40.8 acres 40.8 acres 40.8 acres 40.8 acres 82 26 90,000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft. 90,000 sq.ft. 83 1 60 DU's 8 1 76 DU's 87 3 90 DU's 36 DU's 95 2 150 DU's - 300 DU's 120 DU's 95 12 93,367 sq.ft. 149,388 sq.ft. - - 95 15 2,000 sq.ft. 2,000 sq.ft. - - 1 MAY 14 197q By the (:Ify COUNCIL_ CITY OF N W[Pr r TO: City Council FROM: Mayor Ryckoff CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE. MAYOR May 2, 1979 Attachment 1 is a summary of major development for which permits have not been issued and potential traffic impacts. The summary includes the assumptions noted. Attachment 2 indicates figures used by the County to estimate traffic generation. For the 30% P-C areas presently exempt from traffic considerations, traffic generation of between 6,211 and 11,943 ADT are.indicated. For the 70% balance, between 37,133 and 71,412 ADT are indicated. For Emkay, 10,519 ADT is indicated. For the other areas (residential) 16,940 ADT are indicated. If all (P-C and other) were built out between 70,803 and 110,814 ADT are indicated. if the Council considers that our streets and intersections cannot accommodate these added traffic loads in addition to that from projects presently under construction, it should begin by reconsidering P-C 30% exemptions, for which Council action is otherwise not provided. You are aware that at least one intersection cannot now achieve a satisfactory level of service even with no further development PAW RYCKOFF PR:jmb Attachments (2) AttacYmient.l _. 2.. SUMMARY OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL TRAFF10,41MBACIYJ exit y:' O4t N le:) f i.' 5/1/79 30% Traffic 70% Traffic A. P-CIs Buildable @ 13 @25 Balance @13 @25 Corporate Plaza 39,025 508 976 201,150 2,615 5,029 North Ford 231,222 3,005 5,781 539,518 7,013 13,488 Koll Center 125,658 1,634 3,141 741,205 9,636 18,530 Aero/Ford 1,183,700 15,388 29,593 Civic Plaza 81,812 1,064 2,045 190,894 2,481 4,772 6,211 11,943 37,133 71,412 A-1 Emkay 100%, 420,759 sq. ft. 10,519 (SeeAssumption 1) DU B. Other Acreage Residence ADT West Bay 57.58 x 4 230 24g 2,30,0 (` Newporter North 85.47 x 4 342 3`{0 31420 Castaways 62 x 4 248 a2 5 k 100 2,480 Northeast Coast Highway 76 OF�icF 760 and Jamboree 19 x 4 lvk 5 79 Bayside Landing (NW Coast High- 66 660 way and Jamboree) 16.59 x 4 5th Avenue 1,120 , Corridor 28.12 x 4 112 aoy Aero/Ford 11.5 x 5.4 620 ro ko 6,200 ' 16,940 Assumptions: 1. ADT will be for commercial between 13 and 25 trips per 1,000 sq. ft- In 1974 a figure of '44 was recommended by staff. More recently, the count at Emkay was 25 plus. A recent count at Pacific Mutual was 9 plus. ...(Continued on next page) Planning Commission Meet April 19, 1979 April 13, 1979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Background Study Session Agenda Item CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development Circulation System Study/Land Use Alternatives Discussion of possible approaches to reviewing land use alternatives using the City Council's guidelines on the Circulation Element. On November 27, 1978, the City Council initiated a review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which included a study of land use alternatives for the major vacant parcels, including the P-C's excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (see attached). The first phase of this study, dealing with acceptability of the circulation system and tentative intersection design, has been completed. On March 26, 1979, the City Council adopted guidelines for the Circulation Element based on recommendations submitted by the Transportation Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee (copy attached). These include, in part, the following general guidelines: , The City should not implement any grade separations with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches overpass. 2. The maximum roadway in the City shall be limited to 16 lanes, and the maximum intersection shall be limited to 9 lanes, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. The land use portion of this study requires the Planning Commission to provide the City Council with a series of 5 density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels as follows: 1. No reduction (existing General Plan) 2. To be determined 3. To be determined 4. To be determined 5. Low -Density Residential Possible Approach to Land Use Alternatives The goal of this exercise would be to recommend land use alternatives for the vacant parcels which would be compatible with the circulation system as modified by the City Cogncil's guidelines. 'Due to the large number of possible combinations there is a. need to adopt a fairly uniform approach. Staff is suggesting that the following set of al- ternatives be considered for each of the undeveloped commercial/industrial parcels: TO: �nning Commission - 2. n Alternative 1: Existing General Plan Designation and Intensity Alternative 2: Commercial/Residential Mix Alternative 3: 20% Reduction in Allowed Intensity Alternative 4: Medium -High Density Residential 8-12 DU/acre Alternative 5: L.ow Density Residential 4 DU/acre For the major vacant sites which are currently designated for residential use only, the Planning Commission may wish to limit its review to two alternatives, with no consideration of commercial uses, as follows: Alternative 1: Existing General Plan Density. Alternative 2: Low Density Residential ' 4 DU/acre This is based on the expected higher traffic impact which would result from the introduction of commercial uses. Most existing residential sites are designated as "Medium -Density Residential" at a density 5 to 10 DU's per buildable acre. The undeveloped parcels are examined individually below. Comments are included as to the adequacy of alternatives in terms of site constraints and adjacent development. The proposals are general in nature and are intended for discussion purposes at this point. COMMERCIAL SITES 1, Koll Center Newport Background: Koll Center Newport i.s a Planned Community District which is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Allowable uses include office, industrial, park, institutional, hotel, and commercial. Existing development includes 1,657,092 square feet; 1,143,432 square feet addit- ional is allowed, including a hotel of unspecified size. Vacant sites comprise approximately 45 acres. Pursuant to Amendment 514, any deve- lopment in excess of 30% of the additional allowable is subject to the approval of a development phasing plan. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - high intensity residential would be substituted for a portion of the allowable 1.14'million square feet of commercial/office. 3. 20% Reduction - decrease future allowable by 228,686 square feet. 4. Medium -High Density - allow 360 to 540 DU's on the vacant sites. 5. Low Density - allow 180 DU's on the vacant sites. TO: Onning Commission - 2. ''4 Alternative 1: Existing General Plan Designation and Intensity Alternative 2: Commercial/Residential Mix Alternative 3: 20% Reduction in Allowed Intensity Alternative 4: Medium -High Density Residential 8712 DU/acre Alternative 5: Low Density Residential 4 DU/acre For the major vacant sites which are currently designated for residential use only, the Planning Commission may wish to limit its review to two alternatives, with no consideration of commercial uses, as follows: Alternative 1: Existing General Plan Density. Alternative 2: Low Density Residential 4 DU/acre This is based on the expected higher traffic impact which would result from the introduction of commercial uses. Most existing residential sites are designated as "Medium -Density Residential" at a density 5 to 10 DU's per buildable acre. The undeveloped parcels are examined. individually below. Comments are included as to the adequacy of alternatives in terms of site constraints and adjacent development. The proposals are general in nature and are intended for discussion purposes at this point. COMMERCIAL SITES Koll Center Newport Background: Koll Center Newport i.s a Planned Community District which is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Allowable uses include office, industrial, park, institutional, hotel, and commercial. Existing development includes 1,657,092 square feet; 1,143,432 square feet addit- ional is allowed, including a hotel of unspecified size. Vacant sites comprise approximately 45 acres. Pursuant to Amendment 514, any deve- lopment in excess of 30% of the additional allowable is subject to the approval of a development phasing plan. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - high intensity residential would be substituted for a portion of the allowable 1.14'mi-llion square feet of commercial/office. 3. 20% Reduction - decrease future allowable by 228,686 square feet. ( +o irY,Zf� 0 4. Medium -High Density 5. Low Density - allow C� - allow 360 to 540 DU's on the vacan sites. C ,' n,xlz-j (p- ovl,�) 180 DU's on the vacant sites. 9 Planning Commsission IV Meei April 13, 1979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Background Study Session Agenda Item 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development Circulation System Study/Land Use Alternatives Discussion of possible approaches to reviewing land use alternatives using the City Council's guidelines on the Circulation Element. On November 27, 1978, the City Council initiated a review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan which included a study of land use alternatives for the major vacant parcels, including the P-C's excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (see attached). The first phase of this study, dealing with acceptability of the circulation system and tentative intersection design, has been completed. On March 26, 1979, the City Council adopted guidelines for the Circulation Element based on recommendations submitted by the Transportation Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee (copy attached). These include, in part, the following general guidelines: 1. The City should not implement any grade separations with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches overpass. 2. The maximum roadway in the City shall be limited to 6 lanes, and the maximum intersection shall be limited. to 9 lanes, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. The land use portion of this study requires the Planning Commission to provide the City Council,with a series of 5 density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels as follows: 1. No reduction (existing General Plan) 2. To be determined og 5 n f� .p 3. To be determined f� KAr�` T�- 4. To be determined Otak— {ar;.._ A,,,.t �►�iQ, / tiQ;�'sj 5. Low -Density Residential Possible Approach to Land Use Alternatives The goal of this exercise would be to recommend land use alternatives for the vacant parcels which would be compatible with the circulation system as modified by the City Council's guidelines. Due to the large number of possible combinations there is a need to adopt a fairly uniform approach. Staff is suggesting that the following set of al- ternatives be considered for each of the undeveloped commercial/industrial parcels: TO: canning Commission 3. . Discussion: Due to the nature and intensity of existing development, this area would not be.suitable for low or medium density re'sidentihl. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the desirability of high- density or high-rise residential use, and also the issue of additional hotel development. High -density residential use mixed with commercial/ office development could be sufficiently self-contained so as to minimize the impacts that lower density residential would be subject to in such an area. 2. Jamboree/MacArthur Site Background: This site is designated•for a combination of retail and service commercial• and office use. The General Plan contains no specific limits on amount of development. Office use, motel, restaurant or other commercial uses have been discussed. This site contains approximately 2 acres of buildable area. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix. 3. 20% Reduction - not applicable since no limits established. 4. Medium -High Density - allow 16 to 24 DU's. 5. Low Density - allow 8 DU's. Discussion: The size and location of this site in relation to major roads make it unsuitable fo.r residential development. In terms of commercial use, the Planning Commission -may wish.to recommend limits as to intensity or types of uses. At an intensity of 1.0 times the build- able area, approximately 85, 000 sq.ft. of commercial development would occur. 3. Sa.n Diego Creek Sites Background: The northerly 12-acre portion of this site is designated for retail/commercial uses. The southerly 47 acres are designated for general industry. No specific development limits have been established. A 100-200 room hotel with shops and restaurants has been discussed for the northerly port ion. The industrial portion has been discussed as a potential site for a desilting basin in connection with the NIWA 208 Study. Development of either site is not imminent. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - allow commercial on north portion, residential or trailer park on south-. 3. 20% Reduction - not applicable since no limits established. 4. Medium -High Density - allow 472 to 708 DU's. 5. Low Density - allow 236 DU's. F 0 TO: Planning Commission - 4, Discussion: The Planning Commission may wish to establish limits as to intensity and allowable uses. Development will be constrained by soils and flood plain conditions. 4. North Ford Background: This is a P-C District which has been excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Allowable uses include general industry, office, and commercial. Existing development is 129,260 sq.ft.; 770,740 sq.ft. additional are allowed. Development in excess of 30% of allowable requires approval of a development phasing plan. Approximately 68 acres vacant. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - allow 385,000 sq.ft. of commercial/ office, and up to 408 DU's. 3. 20% Reduction - decrease by 154,148 sq..ft. 4. Medium -High Density - allow 544 to 816 DU's. 5. Low -Density - allow 272 DU's. Discussi-on: Residential use appears feasible on this site. There are adjacent residential projects in the Eastbluff area, and residential use is proposed on the Aeronutronic-Ford.sit'e to the south, The design of any residential project would need to minimize impacts from existing commercial uses. Commercial uses to serve adjacent residences could be encouraged here. 5. Aeronutronic Ford Site Background: Current designations allow office, industrial, and residential uses. Existing industrial park includes 962,400 sq.ft.; an additional 1,691,000 sq.ft. is allowable under use permit. This P-C is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Vacant site area is 102 acres. Development plans and EIR are being submitted for a residential project of 620 DU's. An additional 3600000 sq.ft. of industrial park is proposed. Possible Alternatives: , 1. No change - allow buildout as industrial park only. 2, Commercial/Residential Mix - allow development of 360,000 sq.ft. and 620 'DU's as proposed by property owner. 3. 20% Reduction - decrease future industrial use by 338,200 sq.ft., (no residential). 4. Medium -High Density - allow 816 to 1224 DU's. 5. Low Density - allow 408 DU's. TO: Planning Commission - 4. Discussion: The Planning Commission may wish to establish limits as to intensity and allowable uses. Development will be constrained by soils and flood plain conditions. 7.5 J 4. North Ford Background: This is a P-C District which has been excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Allowable uses include general industry, office, and commercial. Existing development is 129,260 sq.ft.; 770,740 sq.ft. additional are allowed. Development in excess of 30% of allowable requires approval of a•development phasing plan. - Approximately 68 acres vacant. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential'Mix -•allow 385,000 sq:ft. of commercial/ office, and up to 408 DU's. (%�bw/tiz-9Y&) 3. 20% Reduction - decrease by 154,148 sq.ft. 4-o 61ZJS-gia- 4. Medium -High Density - allow.544 to 816 DU's. 5. Low -Density - allow 272 DU's. Discussion: Residential use appears feasible on this site. There are adjacent residential projects in the Eastbluff area, and residential use is proposed on the Aeronutronic-Ford. site to the south. The design of•any residential project would need to minimize impacts from existing commercial uses. Commercial uses to serve adjacent residences• could be encouraged here. 'lc/ J5. Aeronutronic Ford Site Background: Current designations allow office, industrial, and residential uses. Existing industrial park includes 962,400 sq.ft.; an additional 1,691,000 sq.ft. is allowable under use permit. This P-C is excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Vacant site area is 102•acres. Development plans and EIR are being submitted for a residential project of 620 DU's. An additional 360,000 sq.ft. of industrial park is proposed. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change - allow buildout as industrial park only. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - allow development of 360,000 sq.ft. and 620 DU's as proposed by property owner. 3. 20% Reduction - decrease future industrial use by 338,200 sq.ft.., (no residential). 4. Medium -High Density - al.low 816 to 1224 DU',s. 5. Low Density - allow 408 QU's. TO: `Planning Commission - 3. Discussion: Due to the nature and intensity of existing development, this area would not be suitable for low or medium density residential. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the desirability of high - density or high-rise residential use, and also the issue of additional hotel development. High -density residential use mixed with commercial/ office development could be sufficiently self-contained so as to minimize the impacts that lower density residential would be subject to in such an area. 71 %(2. Jamboree/MacArthur Site Background: This site is designated for a combination of retail and service commercial and office use. The General Plan contains no specific limits on amount of development. Office use, motel, restaurant or other commercial uses have been discussed. This site contains approximately 2 acres of buildable area. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix. a.; 0OD /la— VUJ 3. 20% Reduction - not applicable since no limits established. 4. Medium -High Density - allow 16 to 24 DU's. S. Low Density - allow 8 DU's. Discussion: The size and location of this site in relation to major roads make it unsuitable for residential development. In terms of commercial use, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend limits as to intensity or types of uses. At an intensity of 1.0 times the build- able area, approximately,85, 000 sq.ft. of commercial development would occur. �(, ✓ 3. San Diego Creek Sites Background: The northerly 12-acre portion of this site is designated for retail/commercial uses. The southerly 47 acres are designated for general industry. No specific development limits have been established. A 100-200 room hotel with shops and restaurants has been discussed for the northerly portion. The industrial portion has been discussed as a potential site for a desilting basin in connection with the NIWA 208 Study. Development of either site is not imminent. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - allow commercial on north portion, residential or trailer park on south. po+mv tiooaoO .{- 774 <Yo%A10 3. 20% Reduction - not applicable since no limits established. 4. Medium -High Density - allow 4722 t 08.DDU' . 5. Low Density - allow 236 DU's. K '0"/w T0: 16anning Commission - 5. 6. Newport Center Background: Newport Center is designated for a combination of commercial, office, and residential uses. -Existing uses include the following: Office & Medical: Commercial Theatre Hotel Residential Civic Automotive Golf Course Tennis Club Future additional includes: Office & Medical Commercial Theatre Residential Civic 2,251,644 sq.ft. 1,191,250 sq.ft. 1750 seats 377 rooms 67 DU's 96,000 sq.ft. 5 acres 18 holes 24 Courts 1,498,356 sq.ft. 58,750 sq.ft. 2650 seats 471 DU's 10,000 sq.ft. These development limits were established as a result of General Plan Amendment 78-2. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial Residential Mix - int-roduce residential uses on selected 'sites: (a) Civic Plaza•- allow 152,000 sq.ft. commercial/office and high density residential (156 DU's). (b) Newport Village - allow 35,000 sq.ft. commercial and high density residential (150 DU's). (c) Coast Highway Jamboree Site - allow 122,000 sq.ft. commercial/ office'and high density residential (150 DU's). (d) Block 600 - allow, high rise residential. (e) Pacific Mutual - as proposed, by property owner. 3. 20% Reduction - decrease future allowable as follows: Medical & Office - 299,671 sq.ft. Commercial - •11,750 sq-.ft. Theatre - 580 seats Residential - 94 DU's Civic - 2,000 sq.ft. TO: Onning Commission - 6. 4. Medium -High Density - allow residential development only on selected sites: (a) Civic Plaza - 192 to 288 DU's. (b) Newport Village - 264 DU's to 396 DU's. (c) Coast Highway/Jamboree - 240 DU's to 360 DU's. (d) Pacific Mutual - 72 to 108 DU's on condominium site. 5, Low Density - allow residential devebopment only on selected sites: (a) Civic Plaza - 96 DU's. (b) Newport Village - 132 DU's. (c) Coast Highway/Jamboree - 120 DU's. d Pacific Mutual - 36 DU's on condominium site. Discussion: Allowing residential use on sites now designated for commerci-al/office use appears to be suitable on a number of development sites including Civic Plaza, Newport Village, Coast Highway/Jamboree. High-rise residential might be considered for th'e Pacific Mutual site, Block 600, and possibly Civic Plaza. Additional studies are being pre- pared by the property owner. Due to the nature and intensity of existing development, low density residential may not be approporate anywhere in Newport Center. Medium or high -density residential in place of commercial could have the effect of internalizing some vehicle trips and reducing peak hour flows. 7. Bayview Landin Background: This site is designated for either commercial -or residential uses. No limits on commercial intensity have been established. A maximum of 85 DU's is permitted. Vacant site area is 17 acres, Possible Alternatives: 1. No change - allow 85 DU's or a combonation of residential and commercial. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - same as above. 3. 20% Reduction - not applicable to commercial since no Timits established. 4. Medium -High Density allow 136 to 204 DU's. 5. Low Density - a11ow 68 DU's. Discussion: This site may not be appropriate for low -density residential due to topography and proximity to major roadways. Development con- stderations would be affected by County plans for the Dunes. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend specific limits as to uses and intensity. RESIDENTIAL SITES 8.. Castaways Site Background: This site consists of a northerly 40wacre portion which is designated for Medium -Density Residential with 225 DU's allowed. The 26 acre southerly portion is designated for Medium -Density Residential TO: P'Iunning Commission - 6. 40 ✓ woo 4. Medium -High Density' - allow residential development only on selected sites: rq - (a) Civic Plaza -.192 to 288 DU's. -3,3h (b) Newport Village - 264 DU•'s to 396 DU's. 30N(c) Coast Highway/Jamboree - 240 DU's to 360 DU's. (d) Pacific Mutual - 72 to 108 DU's on condominium site. 5. Low Density - allow residential development -only on selected sites: ✓ (a) Civic Plaza - 96 DU's. V (b) Newport Village - 132 DU's. (c) Coast Highway/Jamboree - 120 DU's. (d) Pacific Mutual - 36 DU's on condominium site. Discussion: Allowing residential use on sites now designated for commercial/office use appears to be suitable on a number of development sites including Civic Plaza, Newport Village, Coast Highway/Jamboree. High-rise residential might be considered.for the Pacific Mutual site, Block 600, and possibly Civic Plaza. Additional studies are being pre- pared by the property owner. Due to the nature and intensity of existing development, low density residential may not be approporate anywhere in Newport Center. Medium or high -density residential in place of commercial could have the effect of internalizing some vehicle trips and reducing peak hour flows. 7. Bayview Landing Background: This site is designated for either commercial -or residential uses. No limits on commercial intensity have been -established.- A maximum of 85 DU's is permitted. Vacant site area is 17 acres. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change - allow 85 DU's or a combenation of residential and commercial. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - same as above. g61po)0 8a`DLt 3. 20% Reduction - not applicable to commercial since no limits established. 4. Medium -High Density allow 136 to 204 DU's. 5. Low Density - allow 68 DU's. Discussion: This site may not be appr.opr.iate for. low -density residential due to topography and proximity to major roadways. Development con- siderations would be affected by County plans for the Dunes. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend specific limits as to uses and intensity. RESIDENTIAL SITES 8. Castaways Site Background: This site consists of a northerly 40-acre portion which is designated for Medium -Density Residential with 225 DU's allowed. The 26 acre southerly portion is designated for Medium -Density Residential TO: planning Commission - 5. C 6. Newport Center 1-3 6y br 441 4.7);�� ) �� Background: Newport Center is designated for a combination of commercial, office, and residential uses. Existing uses include the following: Office & Medical: Commercial Theatre Hotel Residential Civic Automotive Golf Course Tennis Club Future additional includes: Office & Medical Commercial Theatre Residential Civic - 2,251,644 sq.ft. 1,191,250 sq.ft. 1750 seats 377 rooms 67 OU's 96,000 sq.ft. 5 acres 18 holes 24 Courts 1,498,356 sq.ft. 58,750 sq.ft. 2650 seats 471 DU's 10,000 sq.ft. These development limits were established as a result of General Plan Amendment 78-2. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial Residential Mix - introduce residential uses on selected 'siies'. S-6r4 ✓(a) Civic Plaza - allow 152,000 sq.ft. commercial/office and high density residential (156 DU's). orbs ,- %1 w) j5,.,c (b) Newport Village - allow 35,000 sq.ft. commercial and high density residential (150 DU's). VU,,,,,(c) Coast Highway Jamboree Site - allow 122,600 sq.ft. commercial/ office'and high density residential (150 DU's). ✓ (d) Block 600 - allow high rise residential. ✓ (e) Pacific Mutual - as proposed by property owner. 3. 20% Reduction - decrease future allowable as follows: Medical & Offi.ce - 299,671 sq.ft. Commercial - 11,750 sq.ft. Theatre - 580 seats Residential - 94 DU's Civic - 2,000 sq.ft. T0: *Planning Commission - 7. (100 DU's maximum) with Recreational and Marine Commercial allowed as an alternate use (no intensity limit established for commercial). The south Castaways site has been discussed for possible hotel and tourist -commercial development. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - allow 225 DU's on northerly portion and a mix of commercial and residential on southerly portion with 100 DU's maximum. 3. Low Density - allow 264 DU's on total site. Discussion: This site is in the coastal zone; and'will be reviewed as to suitability for visitor serving uses in addition to.residential uses during preparation of the Local Coastal Program. 9. Westbay Site Background: The General Plan now allows 348 DU's on 71 acres under the Medium -Density Residential category. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Low Density - allow 284 DU's. Discussion: Due to the character and intensity of adjacent residential uses, and this site's proximity to the Upper Bay, commercial alternatives do not appear appropriate. 10. Eastbluff Remnant Background: This site is designated for Medium -Density Residential (42 DU's maximum) with open space as an alternate if public acquisition is possible. Development of this site is not imminent. Site area is 8 acres. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Low Density - allow 32 DU's maximum. Discussion: Topography and close proximity to the Upper Bay preserve impose constraints on any type of development here. 11. Newporter North Site Background: The General Plan designates this site -Medium -Density Residential With 440 DU's allows. Site area is 88 acres. r '► TO: Oanning Commission - 8. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Low Density - allow 352 DU's. Discussion: Commercial alternatives do not appear appropriate on this site due to traffic system limitations. 12. Big Canyon Area 10 Background: This site is part of the Big Canyon P-C, and is designated Multi -Family Residential.. A total of 260 DU's is allowed for the remainder of Big Canyon. Development of 160 DU's in Area 10 has been discussed with 100 DU's allocated elsewhere in Big Canyon (subject to amendment). Site area is 15 acres. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Low Density - allow 60 DU's'on Area 10 site. Discussion: Due to topography, Area 10 would not be suitable for low density housing without substantial grading. Commercial alternatives would not be desirabl-e or feasible at this location. 13. Baywood Expansion Background: This is a Multi -Family Residential site of 9 acres, located west of the existing Baywood Apartments. 140 DU's would be permitted as a continuation of the existing development. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Medium -High Density - 'allow 72 to 108 DU's. 3. Low Density - allow 36 DU's. Discussion: The existing designation represents a density of 19 DU's per buildable acre (15 DU's/per acre, parcel net). The location of this site_in relation to MacArthur -and San Joaquin Hills Road makes low density development questionable i•n terms of 5co-ess and noise mitigation. Commercial alternatives are not considered appropriate.due to the residential nature of adjacent development. 14. Filth Avenue Parcels Background: These sites comprise a total of 36 acres with approximately 200 DU's allowed. The General Plan designates these sites as Medium - Density Residential. Development is not imminent. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2, Low Density - allow 144 DU's. TO: 9anning Commission - 8. 40 Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. Ll'io 2. Low Density - allow 352 DU's. Discussion: Commercial alternatives do not appear appropriate on this site due to traffic system limitations. ,� 7Q 12. Big Canyon Area 10 Background: This site is part of the Big Canyon P-C, and is designated Multi -Family Residential. A.total of 260 DU's is allowed for the remainder of Big Canyon. Development of 160 DU's in Area 10 has been discussed with 100 DU's allocated elsewhere in Big Canyon (subject to amendment). Site area is 15 acres. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 16O 'm (0 0-4 2. Low Density - allow 60 DU's'on Area TO site. Discussion: Due to topography, Area 10 would not be suitable for low density housing without substantial grading. Commercial alternatives would not be desirable or feasible at this location. ✓ Y 7 13. Baywood Expansion Background: This is a Multi -Family Residential site of 9 acres, located west of the existing Baywood Apartments. 140 DU's would be permitted as a continuation of the existing development. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change.' 1-10 2. Medium -High Density - allow 72 to 108 DU's. 3. Low Density - allow 36 DU's. Discussion: The existing designation represents a density of 19 DU's per buildable acre (15 DU's/per acre, parcel net). The location of this site.in relation to MacArthur -and San Joaquin Hills Rogd.makes low density development goest•i.onable in terms of 'acoess and' noise mitigation. Commercial alternatives are not considered appropriate.due to the residential nature of adjacent development. VOI jf 14. Fifth Avenue Parcels Background: These sites comprise a total of 36 acres with approximately 200 DU's allowed. The General Plan designates these sites as Medium - Density Residential. Development is not imminent. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. $oo 2. Low Density - allow 144 DU's. a TO: Planning Commission - 7. (100 DU's maximum) with Recreational and Marine Commercial allowed as an alternate use (no intensity limit established for commercial). The south Castaways site has been discussed for possible hotel and tourist -commercial development. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Commercial/Residential Mix - allow 225 DU's on northerly portion and a mix of commercial and residential on southerly portion with 100 DU's maximum. ia4 4M 441 loFnu 4,4,fi 3. Low Density - allow 264 DU's on total site. Discussion: This site is in the coastal zone, and'will be reviewed as to suitability for visitor serving uses in addition to residential uses during preparation of the Local Coastal Program. .T 9. Westbay Site $I7 Background: The General Plan now allows 348 DU's on 71 acres under the Medium -Density Residential category. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 2. Low Density - allow 284 DU's. Discussion: Due to the character and intensity of adjacent residential uses, and this site's proximity to the Upper Bay, commercial alternatives do not appear appropriate.. 4 O k/l0. Eastbluff Remnant Background: This site is designated for Medium -Density Residential (42 DU's maximum) with open space as an alternate if public acquisition is possible. Development of this site is not imminent. Site area is 8 acres. Possible Alternatives: 1. No change. 142 2. Low Density - allow 32 DU's maximum. Discussion: Topography and close proximity to the Upper Bay preserve impose constraints on any type of development here. v1 Yk 11. Newporter North Site Background: The General Plan designates this site Medium -Density Residential With 440 DU's allows. Site area is 88 acres, I. T0; PlI ning Commission -.9. Discussion: Commercial alternatives at this location would not be appropriate due to surrounding residential development and circulation constraints. 15. Beeco Property Background: This property is located in West Newport west of Newport Crest and north of Coast Highway. Approximately 50 acres are i'n the City limits at present; 100 acres additional could be annexed and considered for development 'by 1995. The General Plan allows a combination of Multi -Family and Medium -Density Residential. Ap"proximately 900 DU's could be allowed on 150 acres according to existing regu- lations. Development is not imminent due to oil leases on this property. Possible Alternatives: No change. Low Density - allow 600 DU's subject to annexation. Discussion: The uncertainty regarding oil leases here makes planning decisions difficult at this time. The site under consideration is part of a larger parcel of more than,500 acres. This larger area has been discussed for possible marina construction together'wi•th commercial and residential uses. Projects not Included Not included in the review of alternatives are the following sites: Emkay Newport Place, San 'Miguel Triangle, and Pacific Mutual. Emkay has received final approval for a development phasing plan. The other projects have development applications under review. Review of Traffic Impacts The suggested alternatives presented for discussion are conceptual in nature and would require refining and additional study prior to in- corporating changes into the General Plan. In order to facilitate review of the traffic impacts of these alternatives, the Planning Commission may wish to direct staff to evaluate only a limited number of the possible alternatives. Without imposing arbitrary limitation, there would be an unmanageable number of combinations of alterations to evaluate. As a possible approach, each alternative (such as "Low Density") could be evaluated as a separate test for all of the sites. This would result in 5 separate views of future development ranging from "No change" for all sites to "Low Density".for all sites. A sixth test could consist of one "preferred" alternative from each of the •undeveloped sites. Any suggestions from the Planning Commission as to approach would be wel-' comed. Schedule for Completion The City Council has established a tentative'60-day completion schedule for this project (from March 26th). To comply, a report from the Planning Commission would be forwarded for the City Council meeting of May 29th. The Planning Commission would need to adopt its rec- ommendations at the meeting of May loth, or May 24th at the.latest. I► T0: Panning Commission - 10. This may not allow sufficient time to perform the necessary traffic analysis, but it is hoped that at least a preliminary report on land use alternatives can be completed within the schedule. It is suggested that a public hearing on this matter be set for the Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 1979. At that time comments from the general public and affected property owners could be so- licited. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOG'AN, DIRECTOR 8 y &�! David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD/dt Attachments: 1) Council Minutes of November 27, 1978. 2) TPCAC Report. 3) Location Maps TO: Planning Commission - 10. This may not allow sufficient time to perform the necessary traffic analysis, but it is hoped that at least a preliminary report on land use alternatives can be completed within the schedule. It is suggested that a public hearing on this matter be -set for the Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 1979. At that time comments from the general public and affected -property owners could be so- licited. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By &W� David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD/dt Attachments: 1) Council Minutes 2) TPCAC Report. 3) Location Maps of November 27, 1978. • TO: P�ning Commission - 9. Discussion: Commercial alternatives at this location would not be appropriate due to surrounding residential development and circulation constraints. J15. Beeco Property 5 Background: This property is located in West Newport west of Newport Crest and north of Coast Highway. Approximately 50 acres are in the City limits at present; 100 acres additional could be annexed and considered for development'by 1995. The General Plan allows a combination of Multi -Family and Medium -Density Residential. Approximately 900 DU's could be allowed on 150 acres according to existing regu- lations. Development is not imminent due to oil leases on this property. Possible Alternatives: No change. �o° 2. Low Density - allow 600 DU's subject to annexation. Discussion: The uncertainty regarding oil leases here makes planning decisions difficult at this time. The site under consideration is part of a larger parcel of more than 500 acres. This larger area has been discussed for possible marina construction together with commercial and residential uses. Projects not Included Not included in the review of alternatives are the following sites: Emkay Newport Place, San Miguel Triangle, and Pacific Mutual. Emkay has received final approval for a development phasing plan. The other projects have development applications under review. Review of Traffic Impacts The suggested alternatives presented for discussion are conceptual in nature and would require refining and additional study prior to in- corporating changes into the General Plan. I.n order to facilitate review of the traffic impacts of these alternatives, the Planning Commission may wish to direct staff to evaluate only a limited number of the possible alternatives. Without imposing arbitrary limitation, there would be an unmanageable number of combinations of alterations to evaluate. ^�Ay,gj As a possible approach, each alternative (such as "Low Density") could be evaluated as a separate test for all of the sites. This would result in 5 separate views of future development ranging from "No change" for all sites to "Low Density" for all sites. A sixth test could consist of one 'preferred" alternative from each of the •undeveloped sites. Any suggestions from the Planning Commission as to approach would be wel- comed. Schedule for Completion The City Council has established a tentative 60-day completion schedule for this project (from March 26th). To comply, a report from the Planning Commission would be forwarded for the City Council meeting of May 29th. The Planning Commission would need to adopt its rec- ommendations at the meeting of May loth, or May 24th at the latest. 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL. ME N 61 C` N\ .a RI. CALL` N "a y N November 27, 1978 N A 0 Attachment 1 MINUTES IN❑Fr otion 11 Ayes i I x ...pH,�CONTINUED BUSINESS: I. (District"5)•.9axpr Ryckoff's appointment of a member to the Community Development Citizens Advisory Committee to filt-theurkt.,xU�ired term of William il. Morris ending December 317,-' 7a-w„as-`� postponed to December 20, 1978. Com Dev CAC (2127) 2. A report was presented from the Community General Plan Development Department regarding Planning Commis- (673) lion review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. otion x Mayor Pro Tom Williams made a motion to direct I the Planning Commission to take the following actions with respect to traffic considerations: a) Determine acceptability of present Circulation Plan and propose necessary amendments, b) Examine a series of design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted Circulation Element, c) Select those alternatives which appear most feasible for development, d) Determine the carrying capacity of the accepted system and alternatives, a) Alternative land uses should be examined to determine if traffic generation will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system; and to further direct the Planning Commission to provide the Council with a series of five I density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels, including P-C's excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, as follows: 1. No reductions 2. To be determined by Planning Commission 3. To be determined by Planning Commission 4. To be determined by Planning Commission 5. Low density residential and to provide alternative supporting data, both positive and negative, with each alternative; to solicit written data from Commissioners, staff, developers, environmental groups, Chamber of I Commerce, and other individuals or groups as may be appropriate; to provide specific data along with the sources of that data; and to include number values where possible; with specific iI I I criteria to include, but not be limited to, Volume• 32 - Page 298 0 �.. 1004LJLMLN V4- u,�\ HOLI ::ALL• N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 27 1978 MINUTES INDEX traffic considerations, openness of vista or view, City image, toot/ benefit ratio to City, private property rights, public rights, sewer i capacity, energy requirements, implications for airports and social acceptance, and to make its recommendations of an alternative to Council by March 1, 1J99. Mayor Pro Tom Williams stated for the record that the intent of the motion was to cover those undeveloped parcels which the Council still had opportunity to work with in regard to allowable densities. All Ayes , A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tom Willismal motion, which motion carried. �3. A report was presented from the Public Works East Py Department regarding proposed re -institution of Co ervation street lighting energy conservation program in 817) conjunction with conversion of axistiug sysrsms. Motion x The staff was directed to ra-institute the ' All Ayes street Sightinglanargy conservation program. . 4. A report dated November 13. 1978 was preapted Traffic from the Public Works Department ragarding speed Regulations bumps, (132P) Rudy Baron addressed tha Council and asked that re -affirmation of the Cityls ptegent position on speed bumps be withheld, ' James crated addressed the Council and asked that the alley between Rolumad and Catalina be excepted from the city's position regarding speed bumps. ' Notion x Mr. orstad was granted two additional minutes All Ayes for his presentation. Motion x The problem was referred to the Traffic Affairs All Ayes Committee for report back with more details. 5. A proposed ordinance, being, Bluff Development ,*AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regulation ADDING SECTION 20.51.080 TO THE NEWPORT (3061) BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "pEVELOPNENT OF BLUFF SITES" (RELATING TO PLANNED • COMMUNITIES), r• Planning Commission Amendment No. 31Ss initiated by the City of Newport Beech, was presented with a report from the Community Development Depart- ment. Motion x r Mayor Pro Tom Williams made a motion to postpone i the ordinance to January 22, 1979. i •I Volume 32 - Page 299 IZ 0 1 % , , 41. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .� U Ia LMEN y ��D�,S d�\-f'�\ MINUTES I 1Z INDEX traffic considerations, openness of Vista or view, City image, cost/ benefit ratio to City, private property rights, public rights, sewer capacity, energy requirements, implications for airport, and social acceptance; and to make its recommendations Of an alternative to COancil •by March 1, 1979. Mayor Pro Tam Williams stated for the record that the intent of the motion was to cover those undeveloped parcels which the Council still had in regard to allowable All Ayes opportunity to work with densities. A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tam Williams' motion, which motion carried. 3. A report was resented from the Public Works Department regarding proposed re -institution of Beer ation • Motion x street lighting energy conservation program in conjunction with conversion of existing syateme. The staff was directed to re -institute the ' All Ayes street lighting energy conservation program. r 4. A report dated November 13, 1978 was presented from the Public Works Department regarding speed bumps. Rudy Baran addressed the Council and asked that re -affirmation of the City's present Position on ' Traffic Regulations (132P)• Motion x speed bumps be withheld. James Grated addressed the Council and asked that the alley between Holmwood and Catalina be excepted from the City's position regarding speed bumps. , Mr. Grated was granted two additional minutes ' All Ayes for his presentation. Motion x The problem was referred to the Traffic Affairs All Ayes Committee for report back with more details. 5. A proposed ordinance, being, • .'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' ADDING SECTION 20.51.080 TO THE NEWPORT ' BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT OF BLUFF SITES" (RELATING TO PLANNED Bluff Development Regulations' (3061) I COMMUNITIES), Planning Commission Amendment No. 515, initiated by the City of Newport Beach, was presented with a report from the Community Development Depart- ment. Motion x Mayor Pro Tam Williams made a motion to postpone the ordinance to January 22, 1979. i i ' I i Volume 32 - Page 299 0 �I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCII.MBN \;m C� .o rll CALL• `�"November 27, 1978 h A h 0 Attachment 1 MINUTES INnry otion 11 Ayee i( ( x .•4I., •CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Ryckoff's appointment of a member to the Co®Unity Development Citizens Advisory Committee to fiff"the"unAU ired term of William N. Norris ending December 317, 9M&-e postponed to December 20, 1978. Cost Bev CAC (2127) 2. A report was presented from the Community General Plan Development Department regarding Planning Commie- (613) sion review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. otion I x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to direct the Planning Commission to take the following actions with respect to traffic considerations: a) Determine acceptability of present Circulation Plan and propose necessary amendments, b) Examine A aeries of design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted Circulation Element„ c) Select those alternatives which appear moat feaaibla for development$ d) Decarmine the carrying capacity of the accepted system and alternatives, a) Alternative land uses should be examined to determine if traffic generation will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system; and to further direct the Planning Commission to ! provide the Council with a series of five ! density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels, including P-C's excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, as follows: 1, No reductions, 2. To be determined by Planning Commission 3. To be determined by Planning Commission r 1, To be determined by Planning Commission $. Lou density residential and to provide alternative supporting data, both + positive and negative, with each alternative; to 1 ! I solicit written date from Commissioners, staff, 1 i develo(rers, environmental groups, Chamber of ! Commerce, and other individuals or groups as may + be appropriate; to provide specific data along I I with the sources of that data; and to include I number values uhere possible; with specific `I criteria to include, but not be limited to, Ijl Volume 32 - Page 298 I Ah . ATTACHMENT NO.2' 13 March 26, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVISION This Committee has devoted its efforts for the past 23z months to reviewing the existing Circulation Element of the General Plan. The procedure followed was: 1. *Each individual identified suggested changes he, or she, felt desirable. 2. Pros and Cons for each of the suggested changes were identified. 3. Following general discussion of each of the changes., the Committee voted on each of the alternatives. 4. Alternatives receiving majority agreement are forwarded to you as recommendations of the Committee. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS thIntroduction: The committee unanimously agreed with the basic concept that ' e existing Circulation Element, which was developed after years of Engineering analysis and citizen input, is basically sound and should be left unchanged with the following exceptions: 1. Defer any implementation of University Drive until a thorough traffic study is made of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway. 2. Conduct an Engineering Study of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway as soon as possible to determine if the combined capacity of these two roadways, improved with creative engineering solutions, is sufficient to handle realistically projected traffic demand. 3. Reject any alternatives for a grade separation at Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway, specifically alternatives A2 and A3. (Ref: Memo from Staff to Planning Commission, dated December 15, 1978.) 4. Eliminate parking in Corona del Mar from MacArthur to the City Limits with appropriate striping for traffic lanes during the period 7-9 A.M. Mon. -Fri., and 12-6 P.M. Sunday, and no limitation on Saturday. It is further recommended that the Council actively pursue the investigation of expanded off-street parking in Corona del Mar. • 14 i ity Couiri1 -2- March26, 1979 5. It is recommended that the City Council take whatever steps are necessary to encourage the development of 19th Street in Costa Mesa with a river crossing, then terminating at P.C.H. to carry traffic from the Costa Mesa Freeway. 6. Eliminate the secondary road designation on Balboa Boulevard east of B Street. 7. Eliminate Marguerite as a secondary road from Pacific Coast Highway to 5th Avenue. 8. Add the following wording to the "Basic Concept" section of the Circulation Element: a. A bicycle trail and pedestrian trail system should be developed to provide bicycle and pedestrian movement throughout the City; offroad where possible; and where they must share right-of-way with roads, the road design should be such to maintain safety. b. An immediate effort should be made to determine optimum locations for transit stops and each subsequent road improvement should include improved indented areas and attractive pickup stations. These facilities should be implemented on existing roads where possible. c. An immediate effort should be made to improve heavy automobile congestion in recreational areas. 9. The City Council is requested to review -the recommendation on the San Joaquin Hills corridor as promulgated by this Committee, dated 5/10/76, 10. It is recommended that the City not implement any grade separations with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches overpass. 11. The Committee recommends that the Council implement the existing and proposed road plan as amended by TPCAC recommendations as soon as possible when financially feasible. 12. The maximum roadway in the City shall be limited to six lanes and the maximum intersection shall be limited to nine lanes, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. eukrman RHC,dcc Iy I Council -2- March 26, 1979 5. It is recommended that the City Council take whatever steps are necessary to encourage the development of 19th Street in Costa Mesa with a river crossing, then terminating at P.C.H. to carry traffic from the Costa Mesa Freeway. 6. Eliminate the secondary road designation on Balboa Boulevard east of B Street.. 7. Eliminate Marguerite as a secondary road from Pacific Coast Highway to 5th Avenue. 8. Add the following wording to the "Basic Concept" section of the Circulation Element: a. A bicycle trail and pedestrian trail system should be developed to provide bicycle and pedestrian movement throughout the City; offroad where possible; and where they must share right-of-way with roads, the road design should be such to maintain safety. b. An immediate effort should be made to determine optimum locations for transit stops and each subsequent road improvement should include improved indented areas and attractive pickup stations. These facilities should be implemented on existing roads where possible. c. An immediate effort should be made to improve heavy automobile congestion in recreational areas. 9. The City Council is requested to review -the recommendation on the San Joaquin Hills corridor as promulgated by this Committee, dated 5/10/76. 10. It is recommended that the City not implement any grade separations with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches overpass. 11. The Committee recommends that the Council implement the existing and proposed road plan as amended by TPCAC recommendations as soon as possible when financially feasible. 12. The maximum roadway in the City shall be limited to six lanes and the maximum intersection shall be limited to nine lanes, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. �� R. H. Clucas, C airman RHC:dcc ! OTTACHMENT NO. Z' r; 13 March 26, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVISION This Committee has devoted its efforts for the past 21i months to reviewing the existing Circulation Element of the General Plan. The procedure followed was: 1. •Each individual identified suggested changes he, or she, felt desirable. 2. Pros and Cons for each of the suggested changes were identified. 3. Following general discussion of each of the changes, the Committee voted on each of the alternatives. 4. Alternatives receiving majority agreement are forwarded to you as recommendations of the Committee. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction: The committee unanimously agreed with the basic concept that the existing Circulation Element, which was developed after years of Engineering analysis and citizen input, is basically sound and should be left unchanged with the following exceptions: 1. Defer any implementation of University Drive until a thorough traffic study is made of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway. 2. Conduct an Engineering Study of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway as soon as possible to determine if the combined capacity of these two roadways, improved with creative engineering solutions, is sufficient to handle realistically projected traffic demand. 3. Reject any alternatives for a grade separation at Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway, specifically alternatives A2 and A3. (Ref: Memo from Staff to Planning Commission, dated December 15, 1978.) 4. Eliminate parking in Corona del Mar from MacArthur to the City Limits with appropriate striping for traffic lanes during the period 7-9 A.M. Mon. -Fri., and 12-6 P.M. Sunday, and no limitation on Saturday. 4 t is further recommended that the Council actively pursue the investigation of expanded off-street parking in Corona del Mar. LOCATION MAP Commercial Sites 1. Koll Center 2. Jamboree/MacArthur 3. San Diego Creek 4. North Ford 5. Aeronutronic-Ford 6. Newport Center 7. Bayview Landing Residential Sites 8. Castaways 9. Westbay 10.Eastbluff Remnant c ll.Newporter North 12.Big Canyon 13.Baywood 14.Fifth Avenue 15.Beeco I a flpOfl�p \' -- + — ` CRY of NMBEACH Attachment 3 Prudential 134 a 70e Civic Plaza 122 Newport Center •• r Condominium t �Kifiautual xpansion Tz4 ea Island Corporate Plaza West 203 Coast ffwy Jamboree 301 k EXHIBIT 00o block number *, I city ofel, NEWPORT BEACH Pt Ir rF-= ACVAMCN VUA ftjI UMII"0 11.14.77 s rj r,inyor 54 Man :gcr A:Wrnay P Ci L*eator C1 O.:wr colinlIMM ra A unique Corona del Mar CHAMBER of COMMERCE April 18, 1.979 The Honorable Mayor Rykoff and members of the City Council City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 SUBJECT: Parking on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar Dear Mayor Rykoff and Council Members: At our meeting of April 18, 1979, the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce expressed unanimous opposition to the parking restriction on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar as re- commended by the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisori* Com- mittee (TPCAC), which would eliminate all Sunday.parking.. Many merchants and businesses -are open and the curtailment. of the on -street parking would cause a serious financial hardship. There are many restaurants, delicatessens, real estate offices, sporting goods stores, two book Stores, two food markets, liquor stores, a toy.shop and our only hardware store, as well as pharmacies open on Sunday. Another opposition to the elimination of Sunday parking is that this would create too great a hazard to pedestrians seeking to cross Coast Highway, because of the increased speed and traffic. At the present time, the Chamber also opposes rush hour parking restrictions mornings and evenings on weekdays as recommended. The Chamber feels that it is not in the best interests of our local residents and business community to expedite travellers through our city at the expense and well-being of local citizens and businesses. The Corona del Mar Chamber would also like to make two more recommendations: o That two 20 minute green -curbed parking spaces be allocated for every block in the business district for short -time parking. o Immediate installation of a traffic signal at Coast Highway and Orchid Avenue as requested for many years. Si c rely, r7 �,_�.� Luvena W. Hayton President 2855 East Coast Highway * Post Office Box 72 * Corona del Mar, California 92625 * 714/673-4050 cc: Planning Commission and TPCAC From the Office of City Clerk TODAY'S MAIL Date: Y" �O `,m Attn: 0 .&� w 0 OYEeSTEDD � _Y6 BOOKS • PRINTS -ART 3026 E. Coast Hwy, Corona del Mar, Calif 92625 q noto !F—J fJ -rJ J a41 i0 / (• i 09•cr ./Z,I,L, � ve rx / `/ c .QAL zkt.er �\ April 13, 1979 TO: Mayor and City Council Bob Cooper 418 Signal Road Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 (714) 642-6401 To enable those of us who already live in Newport Beach to travel around in this area, the City Council should consider: +4 " 1. Underpasses at intersections where they might be the best solution 2. The extension/completion of University Drive 3. Streets wider than six lanes and intersec- tions wider than nine lanes where appropri- ate Sincerely, Ocla �/?-7 C April 10, 1979 To Members Of: City Council Planning Commission Citizens Traffic Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach, California The members of the Board of Directors of the Corona del Mar Civic Association are in full support of deleting Margu@rite Avenue as a Secondary 4-Lane Roadway. Our residential community would be severely impacted with noise, air pollution, and physical danger in having a 4-lane road dissect our community. We appreciate your good planning judgment in returning Marguerite Avenue to a residential street in your current review of the "Master Plan of Streets and Highways." RPS: mra Sincerely, Richard P. Succa, President Corona del Mar Civic Association Post Office Box 516 Corona del Mar, Ca. 92625 P,EfOVIE€1 i s • ::'r:e,; T0: UTY CLERK �I it rJf.liY CITY OF �Lt�, er. •-.p.; ;;•redoC NEVIPORT BEACIII .•: (—j O:hcr jjj��� CALIF. Tanning Commission Meeti April 5, 1979 Study Session Agenda 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 30, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Circulation System Study City Council action on recommendations of Planning Commission and Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. On March 26, 1979, the City Council reviewed the recommendations on the Circulation System Study submitted by the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. The City Council voted to accept the recommendations proposed by the Trans- portation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. Copies of the Transportation Plan -Citizens Advisory Committee recommendations are attached for the Planning Commission's information. Also attached are tentative intersection designs and a memo from the City Manager summarizing the City Council's action. Review of Land Use Alternatives The second phase of. the Circulation System Study involves a review of land use alternatives for the major undeveloped sites to determine what intensity of development would be compatible with the Circulation System guidelines set forth in the City Council's action. As the Planning Commission will recall, the Council's direction on this study called for a study of 5 land use alternatives for each site ranging in intensity from the existing General Plan to low density residential. Staff will be bringing this matter back to the P1'anning Commission for consideration at a future meeting. Given the guidelines established by the City Council, this analysis measures the impact on I.C.U.'s of different levels of development at build - out. A tentative 2-month deadline has been established. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD/dt Attachments: 1. Memo from T.P.C.A.C. 2. Intersection Design Alternatives 3. Memo from City Manager 0 March 26, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVISION This Committee has devoted its efforts for the past 2z months to reviewing the existing Circulation Element of the General Plan. The procedure followed was: 1. Each individual identified suggested changes he, or she, felt desirable. 2. Pros and Cons for each of the suggested changes were identified. 3. Following general discussion of each of the changes, the Committee voted on each of the alternatives. 4. Alternatives receiving majority agreement are forwarded to you as recommendations of the Committee. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction: The committee unanimously agreed with the basic concept that the existing Circulation Element, which was developed after years of Engineering analysis and citizen input, is basically sound and should be left unchanged with the following exceptions: 1. Defer any implementation of University Drive until a thorough traffic study is made of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway. 2. Conduct an Engineering Study of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway as soon as possible to determine if the combined capacity of these two roadways, improved with creative engineering solutions, _ is sufficient to handle realistically projected traffic demand. 3. Reject any alternatives for a grade separation at Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway, specifically alternatives A2 and.A3. (Ref: Memo from Staff to Planning Commission, dated December 15, 1978.) 4. Eliminate parking in Corona del Mar from MacArthur to'the City Limits with appropriate striping for traffic lanes during the period 7-9 A.M. Mon. -Fri., and 12-6 P.M. Sunday, and no limitation on Saturday. It is further recommended that the Council actively pursue the investigation of expanded off-street parking in Corona del Mar. t,ity Council -2- March 26, 1979 5. It is recommended that the City Council take whatever steps are necessary to encourage the development of 19th Street in Costa Mesa with a river crossing, then terminating at P.C.H. to carry traffic from the Costa Mesa Freeway. 6. Eliminate the secondary road designation on Balboa Boulevard east of B Street. 7. Eliminate Marguerite as a secondary road from Pacific Coast Highway to 5th Avenue. 8. Add the following wording to the "Basic Concept" section of the Circulation Element: a. A bicycle trail and pedestrian trail system should be developed to provide bicycle and pedestrian movement throughout the City; offroad where possible; and where they must share right-of-way with roads, the road design should be such to maintain safety. b. An immediate effort should be made to determine optimum locations for transit stops and each subsequent road improvement should include improved indented areas and attractive pickup stations. These facilities should be implemented on existing roads where possible. c. An immediate effort should be made to improve heavy automobile congestion in recreational areas. 9. The City Council is requested to review the recommendation on the San Joaquin Hills corridor as promulgated by this Committee, dated 5/10/76. 10. It is recommended that the City not implement any grade separations with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches overpass. 11. The Committee recommends that the Council implement the existing and proposed road plan as amended by TPCAC recommendations as soon as possible when financially feasible. 12. The maximum roadway in the City shall be limited to six lanes and the maximum intersection shall be limited to nine lanes, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. R. H. Clucas, C airman RHC:dcc CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER March 27, 1979 DICK HOGAN, DIRECTOR TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: CIRCULATION SYSTEM STUDY ;Ivwt cli f"'.;;•CHI 1 The purpose of this memorandum is to give you my impressions of the City Council -action on March 26, 1979 concerning the Circulation System Study. The City Council adopted and referred back to the Planning Commission for Phase 2 of their study, the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory recommen- dations contained in a memorandum to the City Council, dated March 26, 1979. All recommendations of the Planning Commission would be intact, and acceptable to the City Council, except those that are in disagreement with the TPCAC memorandum. These are: 1. Planning Commission shall not consider any grade separated intersections with the possible exception of Bristol Street and the existing Arches overpass. 2. The maximum road way in the City shall be limited to six lanes and the maximum intersection lanes shall be limited to nine, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. Drawing alternate A-1, for instance, shows 10 lanes on Pacific Coast Highway at Jamboree. The Planning Commission's conclusions should be limited to a maximum of nine lanes. 3. University Drive will not be implemented and, therefore, I assume considered until a traffic staudy is made of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway. 4. Consider parking elimination in Corona del Mar from MacArthur to the City limits during the period 7:00 a.m, to 9:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 12:00 noon to 6:00'p.m. on Sunday. All alternative intersection tentative designs are to be considered unless in conflict with the above. It is my understanding that within approximately two months, the Planning Commission will submit Phase 2 of their study, giving• alternative densities for alternative intersection designs. ( ROBERT L. WYNN cc: Ben Nolan, Public Works Director I 13 3b APRIL 5, 1979 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CIRCULATION ELEMENT TENTATIVE INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS Attachment "A" (Sheets 1 thru 5) is a series of sketches showing the maximum number of lanes that are expected to be required for most of the key major inter- sections. Each arrow indicates a directional movement., More than one lane for a given movement is indicated by the number.at the tail of the arrow. At Jamboree and Bristol, two options are shown to reflect configurations with and without the Corona del Mar Freeway. To further reduce congestion until the free- way loop ramp is constructed, the northbound to westbound left turn at Jamboree and Bristol could be rerouted as proposed by Herman Basmaciyan and Associates in the draft EIR for the Pacific Mutual Plaza Development. This option is shown on Attachment "B" and involves the construction of a segment of University Drive North between Jamboree Road and Bristol Street. 1 Eb • ATTACHMENT "A" TENTATIVE INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS • sricEr N.f or"ATE!su..74741�=rXe M�/ ,HKt, rr. �,.,rE,PEU.AP,Q7iZ.�.1 DiT 4_VGUE�QT/0�1/ CQ4ST.yfs��5'U�E,2/OE/�BQLe,4 AOW-4702T1 /'/.4 L/OO COGBT IVAOX yr, 0OP ol"' COLlST yWY/dIlMBOBEE' p\ f /Y14C.4BTf/U2� f'OG�,O 32 k 1 QQ GG '/G „i Wr✓� IIA IF�Q�f/,��� 7p'111•GCT �VG {f • V • ,111 PT NV lb vF �I ��, IlI: I` t„ OATC i/��,//i�VrY �✓• I,.I V_ :cal`I.�vY A� JOB No CDQ6T yftiY. � ODl�E2 COGST .�df�VY./d.DYS/OE ,oC iE,2 .BQYs/OE i ' 3 B<ll�u^bCiP G.7�.'3/OE .1 C0,4 5 T h�k/Y. / .4 YDC4O0 CO,C.J✓�'T /�i✓Y.�iHGC.42Ti�1�2 ail _COf/GLET CY.iYF/Glleetr/ON coosr ,yrsylvaY I 3_ L77 j'rIg. DATF_�y�`_Twv, 5• CT.TY.LY.fL`.�.I.V V 0 �� C'E'C Tl�� % OF .�. ti r 141(0 R7 UATEkdAm791A f 1;.R.17t .r.JOO NO rra N�.... .......... tl,Qi1�1B0�2EE�B4NT�16[t12B.4,2�4 J.4/l1BO,B�E'E/S,�IN d04QU/�l/ n- 4r 3 z 32 4. f gQ,ur B ' SO.0 dD.c14U/.C/ tlgM90,C�EE�,COpO�EQ,STBLUFF v I I rd,9TBLU.CF _ �� Q Z ��♦` F020 y�AM 60 eG� -00000 z i D.Y! GHEE .3 iYJ,ciCGL�T//!/. /i'l4C42Ti�/!/2 bufECTTEN_ r.r i. o7C*n�R. %9 LN_1'. R .E f_�oN _.co.NE1&LjSA.0 A rio ,4VOC,4001"1v d0.4 MI-1 Oda& rYl/6UEG dd* . J �Yl.4C.t1,C�Tiyl�Q 41MV11/N i 3 �— CdZ/PGET CON.�YGC/L�.4T/OrY .4L TE2N4TE C- ¢ /LlGC LJL�T.y/!/Bl Sodtl /Y!/GUEG dl4C, aI .ail-- Z :;G071PCET COrYF/GIJC�lT/ON .4LTE2AI0TE C-4 �J L x 0 0 A I f-WIIry.'%i 5��6J ECT,�✓��A I�V �I 6'.2/5'TOL1C4",40e1S//.pY/.!!B C4/Yl�U.� I "'�--4812/9TdG 1� r�Yru� • SHEil No 5 of.. 5, IOB N„ ,8,2/9701. Gi1.1BO.eEEdAWMA s �I 9p/67OL A/, B2/9TOG 2 ��� 94el,STOL1t1.41W4&ooe4ee 1 OR/9TOL Vo¢rs1 COROA14 OEL I'l 44111.--¢ S BEFOe6.QE.PCVT/NG BY DVOY of UN/Y�'SeS�7y GtP /YUPr SE6' � .4TT4Ci/iYlENT 'B" g4— 4 % "W ie .f AOffe O y' Be/STOG 3 11 , LP ATTACHMENT " B " REROUTING NORTHBOUND JAMBOREE ROAD LEFT TURN AT BRISTOL STREET BY WAY OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE NORTH SEE DETAIL "A" rod BRISTDL Y 1 STREET NO. I 3rREFr .�. I I f011__ t ...� m / 1 7 t,I OP/� SEE DETAIL "B^ GENERAL VICINITY 9 In l II 4' I ARISTOL STREET •— Leh Tom Lanes Converted to Painted I I T f I 1 Y I i DETAIL "A" i 0 tC \ m 6 2 SIa ..t o• : DETAIL "B" SCHEMATIC NOTTO SCALE Herman FIGURE 12 �asmarman RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AT AND NEAR INTERSECTION OF BRISTOL STREET NORTH AND JAMBOREE ROAD and Anavafoa (With Prudential) 4262 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 3-7 Intersection No. 10A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Note: Improvements are necessary to accommodate northbound-to-wastbovnd (714) 549.9940 left turns by rerouting. MUM 1 15 - 13.3a CIT OF NEWPORT BEAM COUNCILMEN MINUTES ?''li�Jf� �p y9G22i Rni I ! Al I Ka-- ti nr 1070 INDEX .t s Moll n x Councilman Heather asked that the motion be amended to exclude reference to the downcoast sphere of influence, which amendment was not -accepted by the maker of the motion. Ayes \ x A vote was taken on Councilman Heather's amendment,. Noes x x x \ x which failed. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Strauss' main motion, Noes x which motion carried. 2. dinance No. 1801, being, Harbor Regulations ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT 0-1801 B CH AMENDING CHAPTER 17.33 OF THE (386) NEW (RT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PIER�FEES. A report dated Febr ry 26, 1979 from the City Manager was presented regardin arbor permit fees. Motion x Ordinance No. '1801 was adop d. All Ayes F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the City Xarding Library recommendations for a member and an (474) member to the Santiago Library Syste Board. Motion x Mayor Pro Tern Williams made a motion to appoint Ayes x x x x Mrs. Robert E. Hilchey as the Member and Richard Noes x McFarland as the Alternate Member, as originally recommended by the Board of Library Trustees, and to adopt Resolution No. 9525 appointing a member R-9525 and alternate member to the Santiago Library System Lay Advisory Board, which motion carried. 2. A report was presented from the Community Development General Plan Department regarding consideration of Master Plan (673) of Streets and Highwayand design alternatives for p armed improves ements, mitiatee by the Qy of�Newport Beach, wft'h recommendations of the_Plan_n_i_ng Commission on circulafion�system revisions. A report was presented from the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. Don Webb, Cooperative Projects Engineer, gave a staff report. Dick Clucas, Chairman of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, addressed the Council regarding the recommendations of the Committee. The following people addressed the Council in favor of overpasses and/or grade separations: J. Lester Steffenson, and Dan Rogers, representing the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, who also spoke in favor of an Environmental Impact Report on University Drive, supported the San Joaquin Hills Corridor and asked that we keep all -the options open. i Volume 33 - Page 73 OTY OF NEWPORT B ACM COUNCILMEN �i A � ROLL CALL March 26. 1979 MINUTES INDEX Motion x Mr. Rogers was granted two additional minutes for All Ayes his presentation. Debra Allen, in behalf of the Broadmoor and Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and opposed any underpass concept, and endorsed C-6 as an alternative. Motion x Mrs. Allen was granted two additional minutes for All Ayes her presentation. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion to accept the General Plan Circulation Element revision as recommende by the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisd� Committee, indu-d ng tfie-ouf` r points in c_onne_ction with_t_h_e S_an Joaquin Hills corridor as of May 10, 1976. Motion x Councilman Hart made a substitute motion to accept Ayes x x the recommendation of the Planning Commission Noes x x x to proceed with the review of land use alternatives consistent with circulation system capacity; to agree in concept with the grade separation with the understandin that it would be a last resort and that maximum intersec- tions will generally be nine lanes, which motion failed. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken -on _Coung!ImWl vmme�r�ain Noes x moxlon, wh(zh-motlon_carried. 3. A report was presented from the City Attorney regarding Condominiu condominium conversions. Conversion I Council/ The following people addressed the Council and opposed Policy the Council Policy: David Neish, representing Daon OF) Corporation; Richard Valenstein; esentin The Irvine Company; and Lake Tr Motion x Mr. Trout was granted two additioAll Ayes ZmInutesfor his presentation. John Harrison addressed the Couneproposed Council Policy. Motion x Council Policy T-1, "Condominiu Ayes x x x x was adopted, as amended, chaprg the vacancy Noes x rate from 5% to 3% and addifig language to indicate that the Policy is only a dinporary measure until a condominium conve on ordinance can be enacted, and that it wi=ternate not later than six months. G. CURRENT B: I. A repor was presented from the Community Development Tracts 5463 Dep ment regarding a request of the Bluffs Homeowners' do 5480 munity Association to amend the Declaration CC&R's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as recorded /on March 16, 1964. The City Attorney presented a letter from The Bluffs Homeowners' Community Association stating that the request listed on the agenda had not come from them and asking that it be deleted or denied. ' I Volume �3 - Page 74 �z W K r l 3,30 City Council Meting March 26, 1979 Agenda Item No. F-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 22, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Circulation System Study FILE C®PY DO NOT REA40VE Consideration of Master Plan of Streets and Highways and design alternatives for planned improvements, initiated by the City of Newport Beach, with recom- mendations of the Planning Commission on circulation system revisions. Suggested Action_ If desired, accept recommendations of the Planning Commission and direct the Planning Commission to proceed with review of land use alternatives consistent with circulation system capacity. Background At its meeting of March 12, 1979, the City Council continued its consideration of this item. The Circulation System Study was initi- ated by the City Council on November 27, 1978. The Planning Commis- sion concluded its review of the circulation portion of this study on February 22, 1979. The Planning Commission's recommendations are summarized in the previous staff report attached. Attachments The following material is attached for the City Council's consider- ation: 1) Previous staff memo (March 6, 1979) 2) Report from Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee 3) Circulation System Capacity/Volume Map 4) Tentative Intersection Configuration Diagrams The City Council members may wish to bring for reference.the Back- ground Report and copy of the Voorhees Study which were distributed at the previous meeting. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT R. V. HO,.G-A'N•, Director l D by DAVID DMOHOWSKI Advance Planning Administrator DD/kk City Council Meeting March 12, 1979 Agenda Item No. G-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 6, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Circulation System Study Consideration of Master Plan of Streets and Highways and design alternatives for planned improvements, initiated by the City of Newport Beach, with recom- mendations of the Planning Commission on circulation system revisions. Suggested Action If desired, accept recommendations of the Planning Commission and direct the Planning Commission to proceed with review of land use alternatives consistent with circulation system capacity. Planning Commission Recommendation On February 22, 1979, the Planning Commission conducted the last of a series of public hearings on the Circulation System Study and made the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. That the completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor be strongly supported as a means of diverting regional traffic around Newport Beach and thereby lessening the need to provide capacity in the City's Circulation System for this traffic. 2. That the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to Bonita Canyon and the completion of the interchange between the Corona del Mar and Costa Mesa Freeways be strongly supported. That tentative intersection geometrics be determined now and precise intersection geometrics be determined at the time roadways are widened to their ultimate cross section, realizing that in some instances additional turning or through lanes may be required in the vicinity of heavily used intersections. That both an at -grade intersection and grade -separated intersection be considered in the alternatives reviewed T-7' TO: City Council - 2. in the project design studies at both the Coast Highway/Jamboree Road intersection and at the Avocado/MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills Road inter- section. More specifically, that design alternatives Al, A3, A4, C4, C5, C6, and C8 be considered (See Exhibit I). 5. That decisions on the future of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road be based on an environmental assessment which would evaluate both the effect of the construction of the roadway as well as the effect on the surrounding roadways of its deletion from the Circulation Element. Background On November 27, 1978, the City Council directed the Planning Commis- sion to initiate a review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, with the following specific guidelines: a) Determine the acceptability of the present circulation plan and propose necessary amendments. b) Examine a series of design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted Circulation Element. c) Select those alternatives which appear most feasible for development. d) Determine the carrying capacity of the accepted system and alternatives. e) Alternative land uses should be examined to determine if traffic generation'will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system. The Planning Commission's recommendations were to be forwarded to the City Council by March 1, 1979. The Planning Commission conducted a series of public meetings and hearings on this matter and concluded their review of the circulation portion of this study on February 22, 1979. Notices of these meet- ings were widely distributed to neighborhood associations, citizens committees and other community organizations,. Staff reports and technical information forwarded to the Planning Commission have been compiled in a "Background Report" (attached). Also attached for the City Council's reference is a copy of the Alan M. Voorhees Circula- tion Study (1972) which provided much of the technical basis for the existing Circulation Element. The Planning Commission's work on this study to date has included items a) through d) as listed above. Based on the City Council's review of the Planning Commission's recommendations and possible further direction, a review of land use alternatives will proceed. 0 Iu; City Council - 3. Consistent with the City Council's initial direction, a series of land use alternatives for the major undeveloped sites -- ranging in intensity from the existing General Plan to low -density resi- dential -- will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. This portion of the study will incorporate results from the Traffic Model tests. SqPtemental Report from Public Works Department Attached for the City Council's review is a report from the Public Works Department discussing the findings of the Circulation System Study. Environmental Significance In terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Circulation System Study has been considered a feasibility or general planning study, and, therefore, no EIR is required. If formal General Plan amendments to the circulation plan are initiated as a result of this study, those amendments will require more in- tensive environmental review, as will implementation of individual system improvements. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by _ /l`� - DA ID DMOHOWSKI Advance Planning Administrator DD/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Memo from Public Works Department 2) Background Report 3) A. M. Voorhees Report a .f Exhibit 1 feeh{en toll' y R blend C • s ° C'e •wport •♦ Y deMe .e 6 lw re°et c air. 1 6O .ld• a ere ll' foehlen r yr. r N Idond Il • a • E S ft♦ ones 'e dunes �0 y '✓ 6 tW o tee•r A C dr.40 a-3 aid* foehlen r Id, ti N blend Il 40 i E0 i< L 0 wpert • • dune/ 9 / O reset i �. 1 W� � — dr. a-4 d9 el Circulation Concepts Coast Hiahwav- Jamboree FRd Vas • Exhibit 1 (cont) fnhln Ulan. hill. Inhln Ul.nd e1. Circulation ..n Iwyyln hill d. f a s i IuhBn Island I R R � f I I .-- .... . / /Pff i. ie l..hl.n Island 110 1 1 'A I 1 Ra m Macarthur -Avocado -San Joaquin Hills 6. l L M L t TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW DISCUSSION: The review of the Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highway presented to the Planning Commission by the Public Works Department covered the following information: 1. A brief history of the system. 2. The elements of the system as they exist today and what the Master Plan provides. 3. Areas where problems exist or are expected. 4. A•series of alternatives for several problem areas. 5. Items that could be covered in setting -up an "Acceptability Criteria." 6. A review on roadway capacity and design as well as a description of Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) calculations. 7. A discussion of specific alternates at the Coast Highway/ intersectionJamboree Road and the Avocado Boulevard/San Joaquin HillsRoadiAvenue/MacArthur intersections. 8. The roadway capacity of the system as it relates to the percentage of green time allowed at intersections. The packet of information accompanying the memo from the Planning Commission contains the staff reports'which presented the above information to the Commission. In reviewing the existing circulation system, the traffic projections used were primarily from the Alan M. Voorhees "Newport Beach Traffic Study", with some supplemental information coming from the "Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II" prepared for the Irvine Company by Cromnelin-Pringle and Associates. Information from the Traffic Model was used to some extent in the last two presentations. However, the staff feels that the Traffic Model data is not yet sufficiently refined to be used in making recommendations concerning the configuration and capacity of the Circulation Element. l� • 1) �,uhjpct: Circulation Element Review Paqe 7 Detailed Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) calculations for all intersections were not prepared because of the unknowns which exist regarding an "Acceptable" circulation element, and the wide range of traffic volumes projected in the different sources of information. There are a minimum of 70 intersections in the circulation system that would require review. A list of the intersections is attached. Some of these intersections have been completed to their master plan configuration and would require only minimal review as long as no changes are proposed. A more detailed review was made of the Coast Highway/Jamboree Road intersection and the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard couplet intersection with San Joaquin Hills Road. These two areas were known to be problem areas, now in the case of Coast Highway and in the future in the case of MacArthur Boulevard. The alternates presented indicated that more than one solution is feasible. In general, the greater traffic service improvements cost more money. It was pointed out that the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor and Corona del Mar Freeway need to be constructed to connect and provide a means to divert regional traffic around Newport Beach. If this is done, the existing circulation element will, on the whole, adequately provide for the traffic projected in the available studies. It must be understood that the adequacy of the circulation element is dependent on the completion of all elements of the system. If an element is deleted, then the surrounding affected roadway will require additional capacity to take care of diverted traffic. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director_ BBN:do Att. n, t ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS Balboa Boulevard *at 23rd Street *at Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street Bristol Street *at Campus Drive -Irvine *at Birch Street *at Jamboree Road at University Drive North Bristol Street North *at Campus Drive *at Birch Street *at Jamboree Road at University Drive North Coast Highway *at Orange Street at 17th Street/15th Street at Balboa Boulevard (westerly of existing) *at Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue at Newport Boulevard *at Riverside Avenue *at Dover Drive *at Bayside Drive *at Jamboree Road at Backbay Drive (extended) *at Newport Center Drive at Avocado Avenue *at MacArthur Boulevard at Marguerite Avenue Dover Drive at 16th Street *at Westcliff Drive Irvine Avenue at 16th Street *at Westcliff Drive/17th Street *at Dover Drive/19th Street *at Santiago Drive/22nd Street *at University Drive *at Mesa Drive Jamboree Road at Bayside Drive at Backbay Drive *at Santa Barbara Drive *at San Joaquin Hills Road *at at Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road at Bison Avenue at Eastbluff Drive North at University Drive North *at MacArthur Boulevard *at Campus Drive MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive *at San Joaquin Hills Road *at Ford Road at Bison Avenue at Eastbluff Drive (Bonita Canyon) (in City of Irvine) at Von Karman Avenue *at Campus Drive Newport Boulevard *at 32nd Street *at Via Lido *at Hospital Road Newport Center Drive (East & West) at Newport Center Drive at San Miguel Drive at Santa Rosa Drive at Santa Cruz Drive at Santa Barbara Drive San Joaquin Hills Road *at Santa Cruz/Big Canyon *at Santa Rosa/Big Canyon at Avocado Avenue *at San Miguel Drive at Marguerite Avenue at Spy Glass Hill Road San Miguel Drive at Avocado Avenue at Spy Glass Hill Road at Ford Road Superior Avenue at Placentia Avenue Via Lido at 32nd Street Von Karman at Campus Drive *Intersections considered for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance • • ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ti 110 TO: CITY COUNCIL March 26, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2 FROM: Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVISION This Committee has devoted its efforts for the past 21, months to reviewing the existing Circulation Element of the General Plan. The procedure followed was: 1. Each individual identified suggested changes he, or she, felt desirable. 2. Pros and Cons for each of the suggested changes were identified. 3. Following general discussion of each of the changes, the Committee voted on each of the alternatives. 4. Alternatives receiving majority agreement are forwarded to you as recommendations of the Committee, COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction: The committee unanimously agreed with the basic concept that The existing Circulation Element, which was developed after years of Engineering analysis and citizen input, is basically sound and should be left unchanged with the following exceptions: 1. Defer any implementation of University Drive until a thorough traffic study is made of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway. 2. Conduct an Engineering Study of Bristol and the Corona del Mar Freeway as soon as possible to determine if the combined capacity of these two roadways, improved with creative engineering solutions, is sufficient to handle realistically projected traffic demand. 3. Reject any alternatives for a grade separation at Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway, specifically alternatives A2 and A3. (Ref: Memo from Staff to Planning Commission, dated December 15, 1978.) 4. Eliminate parking in Corona del Mar from MacArthur to the City Limits with appropriate striping for traffic lanes during the period 7-9 A.M. Mon. -Fri., and 12-6 P.M. Sunday, and no limitation on Saturday. It is further recommended that the Council actively pursue the investigation of expanded off-street parking in Corona del Mar. c City Council -2- March 26, 1979 5. It is recommended that.the City Council take whatever steps are necessary to encourage the development of 19th Street in Costa Mesa with a river crossing, then terminating at P.C.H. to carry traffic from the Costa Mesa Freeway. 6. Eliminate the secondary road designation on Balboa Boulevard east of B Street. 7. Eliminate Marguerite as a secondary road from Pacific Coast Highway to 5th Avenue. 8. Add the following wording to the "Basic Concept" section of the Circulation Element: a. A bicycle trail and pedestrian trail system should be developed to provide bicycle and pedestrian movement throughout the City; offroad where possible; and where they must share right-of-way with roads, the road design should be such to maintain safety. b. An immediate effort should be made to determine optimum locations for transit stops and each subsequent road improvement should include improved indented areas and attractive pickup stations. These facilities should be implemented on existing roads where possible. c. An immediate effort should be made to improve heavy automobile congestion in recreational areas. 9. The City Council is requested to review the recommendation on the San Joaquin Hills corridor as promulgated by this Committee, dated 5/10/76. 10. It is recommended that the City not implement any grade separations with the possible exception of Bristol and the existing Arches overpass. 11. The Committee recommends that the Council implement the existing and proposed road plan as amended by TPCAC recommendations as soon as possible when financially feasible. 12. The maximum roadway in the City shall be limited to six lanes and the maximum intersection shall be limited to nine lanes, exclusive of bicycle and pedestrian paths. 4CJuc�kis, C airman RHC:dcc �' I '�sA .: • • :� i ;+ r•,iS1FQ s An�enitaMv latciaatlWpem6cel�aAiwanrteage.elWily n6ers 6.n t. T.ee,ra6T�4sren M6Cev]•`ebKtretvren(dA11tt1"Ye95t,6 ws tAnhgeSiat-ew /a/IC NEWPORT BEACH 40 6S 1973. �0>fA_—Mnew9e0elrnauara«t1<m n iE [A CFCM NIENIT- ev Sana1rJVeKjtlm tlY MASTER PLAN OF .ZOy � �•• •`� 1 green tl� a tg4e'SeCt16.t .err Eor •.y il! tilts r � � Iq tAe lb!• 1917.18 dour ABi talus STREETS & HDiVWWS m ; � Iq MA" ROAD Q fiiERCHAPX� p SIX LAPS DIVIDED m ADopM •-� _F � n9ry'e r ° `� �} m PRIMARY ROAD FMMVW >}I ° O f ° FOUR LAPS DNDED ROUTES ! _ s "sr. ® PRMARY ROAD BRIDGE MODFIED i% q \`� Ii >�a ° •'- r C�' •� t e.o • • e �i SECONDARY R ROW FOUR LAPS UNDIVIDED J �.� egg a9 4 , COOFONKrION • �1�, .� `+ 5 ii'i+dul`i �^ —'�'- r,1."W9401, � fi _.�._ a°'•P ahsp • th�9r tib e Try •.`..e, Lam=" ,•!��_�`' _ - , �c a ry2g'Q. ,:l: r rj •�' 1 A SMFTED 10. TO 64YSIDE OR V AF;O7i.D By GTY COUNCIL scale`- = in feet - i•` i r o rf�,� ,�o,.�b c _ VAM4 11,1974 �,•,;,..".��.��...�.......... • 4 �� e ,'* • • AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CIRCULATION ELEMENT TENTATIVE INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS Attachment "A" (Sheets 1 thru 5) is a series of sketches showing the maximum number of lanes that are expected to be required for most of the key major inter- sections. Each arrow indicates•a directional movement. More than one lane for a given movement is indicated by the number at the tail of the arrow. At Jamboree and Bristol, two options are shown to reflect configurations with and without the Corona del Mar Freeway. To further reduce congestion until the free- way loop ramp is constructed, the northbound to westbound left turn at Jamboree and Bristol could be rerouted as proposed by Herman Basmaciyan and Associates in the draft EIR for the Pacific Mutual Plaza Development. This option is shown on Attachment "B" and involves the construction of a segment of University Drive North between Jamboree Road and Bristol Street. Attachment "C" shows the various specific alternates discussed with the Planning Commission. These are ad follows: Exhibit 1--Alternate A-1--At grade intersection at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. Exhibit 2--Alternate A--2--Grade separation at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. Exhibit 3--Alternate C-4--At grade intersection at Avocado/MacArthur/ San Joaquin intersection. Exhibit 4--Alternate C-8-- A•grade separation at Avocado/MacArthur/ San Joaquin intersection. Exhibit 5--Alternate C-5--A grade separation with a loop for left turn move at Avocado/MacArthur/San Joaquin intersection. Exhibit 6--The existing and proposed intersection geometrics for Coast Highway and Dover. rop x I() ATTACHMENT "A" TENTATIVE INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS r� C0,46T yw�SU�E,2, Ion N. Z%6.44449.4 NE`V�02T� l�/.4 L/00 COGBr IVAP V 004,6T 1vWX/dLPW494OBEE ccw' Or aovY ezzzio' 2 Il 1 V/,4 L /00 /Yl,Fde-, 2Tf-1U21 41aea RAF 2 PO�d 2 �r f fEN.tAtIVE ��^•�Y W r✓• OATE/%Iy,� ( SUB, �iGTP .. y...,. /�/p Cfl1C D. FfY GATE �,(��Y.1--�=•`!.1..I V. ..S(Jl.�.F 40 rfo..N... ..................... . cwwr �/fVY. 00IiE2 c,"sr oa tiE,2 i 3 2�_ I caas� sryaY• C424 S T VWY1.4 vOC,400 al "WakemGy L _ *SHEET NO OF %.._. JOB NO ccosr,yrsrvsYaY 1� CO,dgr i-1wY11Wde""r11ve 8 I is 4 Y. &19K DATE(,VW,�W SUB•GT.PTB/ IA TI!-.---------- .--------. SHEET NO. 5.... OF ...F-.... CHKD. By DATE......_.._.. .�.�.�L.l>.-(_.L..G.(-�.Q..Y SIF�.✓----✓--R.' JOB NO... .......... ...... .. .......................... ... vghJaoeEE/soNrQ d�leaQ,eQ J.4/l9BO,BEE/s.[!N iJGt4Q!/�,U i 0 d,4iyBDEEE��O,G�O�E�1sTBLUFF F020 sav dao ✓�riv cr.4N180�c��iYl.GC42Ti�,/�/2 Pi �1 V 9 MAC i Y C� y. 0ATE.41W� ,%� SUBIPTQT.EN r I_r .Nv ..-. �.f._C...�jy..... `� SHEET NO K OP ..J..- ,'HN.f, HY PATC LN---/•=G,fO'•=•,-G D..11.1 .�.✓---U. �.!'^ JOB NO .......................:... . 3� �O sdt/ ,4vOC,400�S�1,U h1/GIlEG Jai salt/ ewlall�BL 3 �r "e i lmde ,s xl /YJ/G!/EL a • • rI • V • SHEET MO % OF .� SV BJr CYT �V.IJy.......�N7 .. Q ( I f) f4KD Hy DATE ,�../1I A. - .�.I.O.1-=..> 01 •.�I �.0 /. 'r lOB NO ,BQ/STOL�C„c1iLlolJS//.Qv/.UE ,8,2/BTOL�cJ4it180.L�EE 4��180/sTdL eeisroG 967157OL .i/. 46 OWN_-'-'► z - -y BP,/STOL�d.4,iYlBOLaEE seisro4. ,vo¢r.-1 COROA14 OEL Pr ��rl�i woq ¢ OVA 40-�,g T .NJ,4�2 FQ�EW%4Y 32 � ! eg/sTOG 0 R L J 1 Y co ATTACHMENT "B" REROUTING NORTHBOUND JAMBOREE ROAD LEFT TURN AT BRISTOL STREET BY WAY OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE NORTH I� r SEC DETAIL "A" O o �1. BRISTOL BRISTOL! 1 STREET NO. I STREET I I BRISTOLI ' p m i l I I / m (f { I ns BRISTOL STREBT Left Turn Lana Conwrtdto Painted SEE DETAIL "B" T I so`N GENERAL VICINITY IDETAIL "A" N I l lit °Z I a I Hw l l mc, as ` sn fI0 UNIVERSITY DRIVE y r I3 O' I 9 - • O ,: its � m^ ' 1 DETAIL "B" NQ\EC°Ca�gtL SCHEMATIC ` \ NOT TO SCALE Herman FIGURE 12 Elasmadyan RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AT AND NEAR INTERSECTION OF BRISTOL STREET NORTH AND JAMBOREE ROAD and Associates (With Prudential) 4262 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE 9-7 Intersection No. 10A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Note: Improvements are necessary to accommodate northbound•to.wostbo6nd (714) 549A940 1 left turns by rerouting, AITXHWN T - far. �000m�o�o� sscrtoN j I I I l l l l i l �lll� I f 1 I l 11' sccnaN s a j I 1 � L• 1 j 1 j 1 � szcnoN c T j L l l 1 j 1 1 1 zzcrloN o j f ill 1 j SECTION E ALTERNATE _ A-i EXHIBIT i • /+ •►+►+I SAN JOAOU/N N/LLS I I — ROAD r a . i Q ~ Q ff+f NEIYPoRr GEMER ExisriNc ++ � ► + x I ROAD SAN JOAOU/N HILLS Q I I ' i AT GRADE III ALIRMTE -C- NE r C—R y . S Q 8 + � I ► vAVFYFM Q I ( EXHIBIT 3 o® I ► ' SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD. and MAC ARTHUR BLVD. DATF OATC AVO N ACTECT -Y .dP il i i I H I �fN SHEE'1 NO. OF _. .... NO. _ AMeK E e.. .. EXHIBIT 4 I C BY �Q GN KD R� DATE DATE AVOM►DO Mee kMU'Z BLVD. SUBJ� ... z C. a ci SHEET NO. JOB NO OF -, -..- Amwkm C-7 EX413 T 5 PAC/F/C COAST EXISTING COAST J /// PROPOSED COAST HIGHWAY— DOVER DRIVE INTERSECTION DONALD J. DRAKE, JR., M.D., INC. ROBERT S. ROSENBERG, M.D., INC. DON A. UDALL, M.D., INC. Diplomates of the American Board of Urology Newport Center Medical Building No.2 1401 Avocado Avenue . Suite 602 Newport Beach. California 92660 644-8722 March 26, 1979 Department of Community Development Newport Beach City Hall, Newport Beach, California ATTENTION: Mr. Fred Talarico '" Environmental Coordinator Dear Mr. Talarico: I have a. copy of.your letter of March 19, 1979 to the Planning Commission from the Department of Community Development,wi,th supplemental information reports on Harbor Point Project. I note'•:with interest your drawing of C6B with a cul-de-sac of San -Miguel Drive. The C6B also includes San Miguel from MacArthur to Avocado when they are existing as a couplet. I have redrawn this map in terms of my suggestion for the same couplet concept with an elimination of the cross street at MacArthur and Avocado. I have therefore eliminated San Miguel at this point. Because of the closeness of Avocado to the buildings fronting it, a left turn off of San Miguel onto the access road, Avocado-, would be less desirable than using San Nicolas as the exit road. I think this is con- forming with the plan on C6 but I'm not exactly certain. The concept here is to avoid the intersections caused by San Miguel being extended over to MacArthur. I look forward to discussing this concept with you or any- one from the City to see if indeed this does re -traffic in a manner consistent with the needs of Newport Center with- out imposing additional intersections. Sincerely, / CNEWPORT C"cO Cityo ert S. Rosenberg, M. ent 1979�- ccs:JYMr. Burt Ashland FMr. James Eweker EACH,Mr. William Agee . _. " ~"• . - sgyt/ �oA�Q v 1 �1-f i � � S � n, � I n c� � •--�. :. , ....: rl II V { CF ---7/C J CW OF NEWPORT BE&H COUNCILMEN N\ ROLL CALL'. d' March 12, 1979 MINUTES INDEX (e) A letter from Mr. and Mrs. E. P. Benson re- garding the City s traffic Problems and enclosing an article from the February 8 Daily Pilot. (Attached) (960) (f) Copy of a letter to the California Transporta- tion Commission from the Public Works.Directo of the City of Irvine opposing the recommenda- tion of the Commission that the Bristol Street Couplet and University Drive North, between V397) MacArthur Boulevard and 0.2 miles west of Campus Drive, be adopted as State Highway Route 73 in Orange County. (Attached) (g) A notice from the Public Utilities Commissio regarding hearing notices on rate increase applications stating that only the parti wh request confirmation of the hearing dat and location will be notified, otherwise blic posting or publication will constit a notice (20) (h) Agenda of the Board of Superviso meetings held February 27, 28, March 6 d 7, 1979. (i) Removed from the Consent Ca ndar. (j) Removed from the Consent alendar. 5. The following claims for mages were denied and Claims the City Clerk's referra to the insurance carrier was confirmed: (a) Claim of John Buzzanca for personal in- Buzzanca juries alleg flly incurred when the car in (3199) which he w a passenger was involved in an accident th a City vehicle on Balboa Bouleva and 36th Street on January 31, 1979 (b) Clai of Clifford G. Seachrist for property Seachrist da ge to his home at 1800 Santiago Drive (3200) w ch was allegedly caused when the City emoved a tree creating debris which clogged their water system on January 10, 1979. c) Claim of Allstate Insurance Company as sub- Allstate/ rogee for Edward Fox in connection with injur Fox to Virginia Pearson allegedly sustained when (3202) she fell on the sidewalk in front of Mr. Fox' home on July 15, 1978 due to sidewalk faultily maintained by the City. (d) Claim of Mr. and Mrs. James Briggs for Briggs death of Julie Ann Briggs on Irvine Boulevard (3201) between Mesa and Monte VistA allegedly caused by Newport Beach Police who frightened the horse she was riding causing decedent to be thrown and receive fatal injuries. Volume 33 - Page 66 1 AY OF NEWPORT ACH 4 ' COUNCILMEN MINUTES ���n �0 y9 2 GZ ROLL CALL-, March �� March 12, 1979 INDEX 6. The City Clerk's referral of the following Summons and Complaints to the insurance carrier was confirmed: (a) Summons and Complaint of Robert J. Shaw for Shaw damages (assault and battery; false imprison- (3003) ment; and intentional infliction of emotional distress) Case No. 30-51-56 in the Orange County Superior Court. The original claim was for personal injuries sustained on March 28, 1978 at the beach on Washington Street and enroute to the Newport Beach Police Station. (b) Petition for Writ of Mandamus, CCP 1085 in Property Orange County Superior Court, filed by Owners/ Warren E. Howland, Les Miller, Loraine J. Kings Rd & Miller, Robert Cecka, Jerry Greer and Dr. Kings P1 John Smith v. City Council of the City of (3205) Newport Beach (re property on bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place) he City Attorney's referral to the County Counsel a d authorization for the County Counsel to appear an defend the interests of the City of Newport Bea in this proceeding was confirmed: (a) mmons and Complaint of Beatrice Foods Beatrice Co any at al for refund of property taxes Foods (Ca fornia Revenue and Taxation Code Sec. (3206) 5140 t seq.) (A report from the City Attorn ) 7. The following equest to fill personnel vacancies (1203F) was approved: A report from the City Manager) (a) One Tree Tr er T position in the Parks, Beaches & Rea ation Department to fill a position now va ant. 8. The following staff an committee reports were received and ordered fi d: (a) A report from the Lit r Control Citizens Animal Advisory Committee reg ding animal regula- Control tions. (Attached with copy of the report (862) from the Chief of Police ated January 22, 1979) (b) A report from the Litter Con of Citizens Litter Advisory Committee regarding t e Committee's Control goals and objectives for 1979. (Attached) CAC (2046) (c) A report from the Public Works De rtment regarding investigation of saturate terrace Big Canyon deposits (seismic stability) at Big anyon Reservoir Reservoir. (Attached) (3093) 9. There were no public hearings scheduled. 10. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 1 Volume 33 - Page 67 I t At. and Edwazd _<P. Denson 7028 (11'caEwind rWay dVEwpo%E . 3zacg, Calif. 92660 ' February 21,1979 Mayor Paul Ryckff and Members of the City Council There has to be a lesson in;the attached article for the No C growth- No highway improvement Bloc on the present Newport ` Beach City Council. Laguna Beach tried to stand still while the world around them was progressively growing and you can now see the tragic end results. Traffia congestion„death, injuries that are inexcusable. Sou cant stop progress, if you try you are only kidding yourself. You either grow or you vegetate. Unless the present City Council majority hae some legal way of fencing off and monitoring the incoming outside traffic, there is no way that your anti- highway improvement thinking will work to the advantage of the People of Newport Beach. In view of the galloping inflation and the pending Gann taxing • limitation initiative, Newport Beach City operations are -going to be in dire straits unless it increases its Tax Base and this does not seem possible under the anti- growth policy that now exists, which is threatening the welfare and continued' progress of our fair city. There is no way the City can afford to make the essential imp- rovements in our highway system unless the -City Council can en- courage some outside financial assistance. Dont look to Cal -Trans for this kind of help because I have been told the" Newport Beach is not on their list of favored cities. de believe in sensible and practical controls, but you canot operate Newport Beach as an Island in itself, with no regard for what is happening and going on around you. We have no axe to grind as far as land development goes,but we are greatly jnterested in the progress and beneficial growth of our City. V.df ..\ Y R.. Y a 1 �t FE6 2 61919 A. C!ry %1gRFBACy :<\ P O Mr. & Mrs.E. P. Benson + • THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY t#CIL x Mayor Paul Ryokoff Councilman Ray Williams Councilman Donald. Melnnis .Councilwoman Jackie. Heathei Councilman Paul Hummel ' Counaiiwoms:n Evelyn- Hart • Councilman Donald•Strauas s ' FF9, 6lgj -3 N�pdR pF � cq�/ BPggy f `�• .. Thund�y,Fatxuary0.ts>n-.._ 4 art • Jam,., .. Just onsfil r Toin Marphtine or NE MNEVE>R LAND DEPT. — The Laguna Dead ' PiushedCby Councncllman Kelly d theucitylawmakers ern. dorsed the widening of Laguna Cagypn Road. I am not holding my..breath unlit the wMenhs>t job hAh= Wage a• • _ ., T1WU9aeyLeft B/JLa➢uaaCa oroRotid"'' ` unds for a widenin ro ect w e oh killed the ro eat r IIAT' I$N T ALL that has been killed on this seven. t ile on ormer wallulatisno .� e —INT14F. PAS Res on Larms o m Road have been -head-on crashes. Cunyal' nd eightyfiva people have :t "AWIN f aguna, Canyon' Roan in'twq separate crashes just hours." • • apart A Santa Ana woman was killed on theroad this Mom. ing.Itwas anotherhead-onerasb. Ali of this happened, mind you, despite accelerated police enforcement wherein 16,650 traffic citations were 4. 9 sued last year alone. Tpl Councilman Boyd lost a friend In the Jan. 27 erash 00 ,4.r t Laguna Canyon Road., fie asked the couaiciito act now ou• `•'''.h! 6 his proposal -for a four -lane road with a center divider.ys; r while memoryof the latest fatalities is still fresh. California Transportation officials havCestimated this i job will cost more than $1 million. vokftpRTCESVE'Nslittlegnoph,gicom a t l an onto o t 1{el tit'm not holding my breath until the nrole�t ' I yon Road ta.,,,,.r��.A roadways in our entire co: if you aren't sharing it wit seem be oblvto oHt'B i COY OF NEWPORT BAH COUNCILMEN MINUTES \yG 0 \ knl I CALL March 12, 1979 INDEX A public hearing was set for April 23 concerning Motlon x the installation of a one-way street system on All Ayes Seashore Drive starting at 46th Street. 4. A report from the City Librarian dated Library February 15 regarding recommendations for a (474) member and alternate to the Santiago Library System Lay Advisory Board was presented. T matter was postponed to March 26 to allow Motion x time or the Library Board to meet and A11 Ayes recomme additional names. 5. A report was esented from the City Attorney Council regarding the am dment of the Minutes of the Minutes/ Council Meeting of nuary 22, 1979 in connection Height & with Ordinance No. 17 relating to the height of Density structures on the bluff de of Kings Road and Regulations Kings Place to incorporate a express findings (1279) made by the Council. The Minutes of January 22 regarding � dinance No. 1793 were amended to incorporate the a ess Motion x findings of Council as expressed during t Council Ayes x x x x x meeting as contained in the staff report. Abstain x 6. (District 1) Councilman Strauss' appointment of Litter Johanna Collester to replace Betty Hogan as a rol Motion x member of the Litter Control Citizens Advisory !(2nO46) All Ayes Committee for a one-year term ending December 31, 1979 was confirmed. G. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Master Plan ment Department regarding consideration of Master Sts & Hwys Plan of Streets and Highways and design alter_na- (29) tives for planneimprovements, initiated by the �, City of Newport_ Beach,,, wM77recommendfions'of the Planning Commission on circulation system _ n revisios. A letter received after the Agenda was printed from Mrs. Jean Richmond Lumsden was presented regarding Corona del Mar traffic problems and enclosing a newspaper clipping from the Times. Motion x Conside_rjeation of the item was postponed to All Ayes March 26, 1979. 2. A report was presented from the City Manager Counc regarding suggested amendments to Council Policy icy A-4. (430F) Motion x Proposed amendments 1, 2 anIdS,3,w a approved, and, All Ayes Council Policy A-4, ' B ard`s and Commission Appointments" w ended accordingly. Motion x P cation is to be made by March 30 regarding All Ayes the three vacancies occurring on the Planning Commission as of June 30, and April 17, 1979 is to be the cut-off date for receiving applications for those positions. I I Volume 33 - Page 62 I COUNCILMEN C'Y OF NEWPORT BOCH � MINUTES ��J 9G22 ; s y i F S ROLL CALL �d'� �N March 12, 1979 INDEX 3. A report from the Off -Street Parking Committee was Parking presented regarding a revised rate structure for Permit the Corona del Mar State and City Beach Park and (Pees) Balboa Parking Lots. (119) Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to approve the proposed structure as listed, except that for the summer rate on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, item No. 3 for other vehicles be increased to $2.50 per day. Marine Director David Harshbarger gave a brief staff report. Gordon Kilmer, concessionnaire at Corona del Mar State and City Beach Parks addressed the Council and recommended the rates proposed by staff. Motion x uncilman Hummel made a substitute motion to Ayes x x x in rease the summer rates for other vehicles to Noes x x x x $2. 0 on weekdays and to $2.50 on Saturdays, Sund ys and holidays, which motion failed. All Ayes A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Williams' motion, and Res lution No. 9518, establishing parking fees R-9518 and regu ations for the use of the City parking lots at C rona del Mar State and City Beach and Balboa Par ng Lot and rescinding Resolution No. 8837, was a pted as amended. 4. A report was esented from Councilmen Heather and Council Strauss regard g suggestions for shortening Procedures Council meeting (1096) Councilman Straus made a motion to make the following changes: (a) Study Sessions o commence at 2:00 p.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. (b) Regular Council m etings to commence at 7:00 p.m. (c) Items appearing on he evening Agenda are not to appear on the Study Session Agenda the same day. Michael Gering addressed the Council and suggested that people be allowed to add ess the Council. Ayes x x x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman trauss' motion, .Noes x which motion carried. 5. A report was presented from the Ci Manager Council dated February 26, 1979 regarding c ercial Policies harbor permit fees. (430) Sue Picker addressed the Council and i uired regarding the possibility of using some f the additional mooring fees for some of the n cessary dredging in the bay. Motion x Section 12-B of Council Policy H-1, "Harbor ermit All Ayes Policies" was amended as recommended. i j Volume 33 - Page 63 �__ 3 133� City Council Meeting March 12, 1979 Agenda Item No. G-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 6, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Circulation System Study FILE C®MY DO NOT REMOVE Consideration of Master Plan of Streets and Highways and design alternatives for planned improvements, initiated by the City of Newport Beach, with recom- mendations of the Planning Commission on circulation system revisions. Suggested Action If desired, accept recommendations of the Planning Commission and direct the Planning Commission to proceed with review of land use alternatives consistent with circulation system capacity. Planning Commission Recommendation On February 22, 1979, the Planning Commission conducted the last of a series of public hearings on the Circulation System Study and made the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. That the completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor be strongly supported as a means of diverting regional traffic around Newport Beach and thereby lessening the need to provide capacity in the City's Circulation System for this traffic. 2. That the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to Bonita Canyon and the completion of the interchange between the Corona del Mar and Costa Mesa Freeways be strongly supported. 3. That tentative intersection geometrics be determined now and precise intersection geometrics be determined at the time roadways are widened to their ultimate cross section, realizing that in some instances additional turning or through lanes may be required in the vicinity of heavily used intersections. 4. That both an at -grade intersection and grade -separated intersection be considered in the alternatives reviewed TO: City quncil - 2. • in the project design studies at both the Coast Highway/Jamboree Road intersection and at the Avocado/MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills Road inter- section. More specifically, that design alternatives Al, A3, A4, C4, C5, C6, and C8 be considered (See Exhibit I). 5. That decisions on -the future of University Drive betw-een Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road be based on an environmental assessment which would evaluate both the effect of the construction of the roadway as well as the effect on the surrounding roadways of its deletion from the Circulation Element. Background On November 27, 1978, the City Council directed the Planning Commis- sion to initiate a review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, with the following specific guidelines: a) Determine the acceptability of the present circulation plan and propose necessary amendments. b) Examine a series of design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted Circulation Element. c) Select those alternatives which appear most feasible for development. d) Determine the carrying capacity of the accepted system and alternatives. e) Alternative land uses should be examined to determine if traffic generation will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system. !) The Planning Commission's recommendations were to be forwarded to the i City Council by March 1, 1979. The Planning Commission conducted a series of public meetings and hearings on this matter and concluded their review of the circulation portion of this study on February 22, 1979. Notices of these meet- ings were widely distributed to neighborhood associations, citizens' committees and other community organizations. Staff reports and technical information forwarded to the Planning Commission have been compiled in a "Background Report" (attached). Also attached for the City Council's reference is a copy of the Alan M. Voorhees Circula- tion Study (1972) which provided much of the technical basis for the existing Circulation Element. The Planning Commission's work on this study to date has included items a) through d) as listed above. Based on the City Council's review of the Planning Commission's recommendations and possible further direction, a review of land use alternatives will proceed. "-r TO: City Council - 3. Consistent with the City Council's initial direction, a series of land use alternatives for the major undeveloped sites -- ranging in intensity from the existing General Plan to low -density resi- dential -- will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. This portion of the study will incorporate results from the Traffic Model tests. Supplemental Report from Public Works Department Attached for the City Council's review is a report from the Public Works Department discussing the findings of the Circulation System Study. Environmental Significance In terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Circulation System Study has been considered a feasibility or general planning study, and, therefore, no EIR is required. If formal General Plan amendments to the circulation plan are initiated as a result of this study, those amendments will require more in- tensive environmental review, as will implementation of individual system improvements. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN•, Director by /h - t4= i DA ID DMOHOWSKI Advance Planning Administrator DD/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Memo from Public Works Department 2) Background Report 3) A. M. Voorhees Report Exhibit 1 fashion r Mond w ° 9 'O E w cro •wpart S • dunes as, Cc do 6O aisle a-1 ar �f 1 fashion r lr. 'wa' RN island I` 0 9 F a ro iwperf §� a dYn•• � ro b a 3 `••sr b., a dr. a �° dd• —3 fashion r Island L �•w 'i cro •wprf 'e dunes 9 qe•f " Aw F Solisdr. a-4 Circulation Concepts Coast Highway- Jamboree Rd 77, • Exhibit 1 (cont.) Circulation wn fashion W.no son louialn hill, rd. is I.. Island -an lo.paln hill, rd. tr fashion Island Ra I,. fashion 1. and R# H. %r Ra 4' Ra c-41 1 �_�c-S E o .u.r hlt/hway Macarthur -Avocado -San Joaquin Hills I • 0 1. F00 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW DISCUSSION: The review of the Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highway presented to the Planning Commission by the Public Works Department covered the following information: 1. A brief history of the system. 2. The elements of the system as they exist today and what the Master Plan provides. 3. Areas where problems exist or are expected. 4. A series of alternatives for several problem areas. 5. Items that could be covered in setting up an "Acceptability Criteria." 6. A review on roadway capacity and design as well as a description of Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) calculations. 7. A discussion of specific alternates at the Coast Highway/ Jamboree Road intersection and the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road intersections. B. The roadway capacity of the system as it relates to the percentage of green time allowed at intersections. The packet of information accompanying the memo from the Planning Commission contains the staff reports which presented the above information to the Commission. In reviewing the existing circulation system, the traffic projections used were primarily from the Alan M. Voorhees "Newport Beach Traffic Study", with some supplemental information coming from the "Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II" prepared for the Irvine Company by Crommelin-Pringle and Associates. Information from the Traffic Model was used to some extent in the last two presentations. However, the staff feels that the Traffic Model data is not yet sufficiently refined to be used in making recommendations concerning the configuration and capacity of the Circulation Element. 7 Subject: Circulation Element Review Page 2 Detailed Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) calculations for all intersections were not prepared because of the unknowns which exist regarding an "Acceptable" circulation element, and the wide range of traffic volumes projected in the different sources of information. There are a minimum of 70 intersections in the circulation system that would require review. A list of the intersections is attached. Some of these intersections have been completed to their master plan configuration and would require only minimal review as long as no changes are proposed. A more detailed review was made of the Coast Highway/Jamboree Road intersection and the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard couplet intersection with San Joaquin Hills Road. These two'areas were known to be problem areas, now in the case of Coast Highway and in the future in the case of MacArthur Boulevard. The alternates presented indicated that more than one solution is feasible. In general, the greater traffic service improvements cost more money. It was pointed out that the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor and Corona del Mar Freeway need to be constructed to connect and provide a means to divert regional traffic around Newport Beach. If this is done, the existing circulation element will, on the whole, adequately provide for the traffic projected in the available studies. It must be understood that the adequacy of the circulation element is dependent on the completion of all elements of the system. If an element is deleted, then the surrounding affected roadway will require additional capacity to take care of diverted traffic. c �a /44t�-4 Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director BBN:do Att. ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS Balboa Boulevard *at 23rd Street *at Newport Boulevard at 32nd Street Bristol Street *at Campus Drive -Irvine *at Birch Street *at Jamboree Road at University Drive North Bristol Street North *at Campus Drive *at Birch Street *at Jamboree Road at University Drive North Coast Highway *at Orange Street at 17th Street/15th Street at Balboa Boulevard (westerly *at Balboa Boulevard/Superior at Newport Boulevard *at Riverside Avenue *at Dover Drive *at Bayside Drive *at Jamboree Road at Backbay Drive (extended) *at Newport Center Drive at Avocado Avenue *at MacArthur Boulevard at Marguerite Avenue Dover Drive at 16th Street *at Westcliff Drive MacArthur Boulevard at San Miguel Drive *at San Joaquin Hills Road *at Ford Road at Bison Avenue at Eastbluff Drive (Bonita (in City of Irvine) at Von Karman Avenue *at Campus Drive Newport Boulevard *at 32nd Street *at Via Lido *at Hospital Road Canyon) Newport Center Drive (East & West) at Newport Center Drive at San Miguel Drive at Santa Rosa Drive at Santa Cruz Drive of existing) at Santa Barbara Drive Avenue Irvine Avenue at 16th Street *at Westcliff Drive/17th Street *at Dover Drive/19th Street *at Santiago Drive/22nd Street *at University Drive *at Mesa Drive Jamboree Road at Bayside Drive at Backbay Drive *at Santa Barbara Drive *at San Joaquin Hills Road *at at Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road at Bison Avenue at Eastbluff Drive North at University Drive North *at MacArthur Boulevard *at Campus Drive San Joaquin Hills Road *at Santa Cruz/Big Canyon *at Santa Rosa/Big Canyon at Avocado Avenue *at San Miguel Drive at Marguerite Avenue at Spy Glass Hill Road San Miguel Drive at Avocado Avenue at Spy Glass Hill Road at Ford Road Superior Avenue at Placentia Avenue Via Lido at 32nd Street Von Karman at Campus Drive *Intersections considered for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance 13.3a STUDY SFSS: %''1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Paul Ryckoff and the City Council From: Council Members Jackie Heather, Donald A. McInnis F1 L E (COPY DO ROT P.° '0"JE. Date: March 8, 1979 Re: Positive Traffic Solutions Program During the past 11 months the City Council has given intense consideration to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and its means of implementation. The focus of this effort, perhaps necessarily, has been almost entirely on vehicle -count formulas and land use constraints. Many development projects have been cut back or delayed. Some regard this as a positive result. That may or may not be. There has been another result, however, that cannot be questioned. The task of meeting the City's specific traffic improvement needs, from immediate to long-range, has been left largely unattended. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, whatever good it can achieve, does not assure that one more car will be able to get through any intersection any faster. , The traffic problems our City was experiencing prior to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance are still with us, and they are growing. They demand a positive response. In the interests of the mobility and safety of our citizens, we believe the City Council must provide this response, effectively, meaningfully and promptly. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance, however it is applied, is not enough. While it may discourage undesirable land uses, it does little to encourage'desirable traffic improvements. There is a requirement for action here that rests heavily on the City Council. . With the inevitability of continued growth inside and beyond Newport's borders, it is a requirement that will not go away. It can only become more massive, unless it is addressed in a realistic fashion. A program for positive traffic solutions is needed. Now that the Traffic Phasing Or is no longer the subject of City Council debate, we believe -it is time for the Council to commit itself to the development and implementation of some such action program on our traffic problems. Essential. improvement projects must be identified, priorities for action must be established.,. and the mean of getting things done must be agreed -upon. Significant transportation system improvements, or at least the beginnings of them, have been put off long enough, while our traffic problems and the cost of solving them have increased. f R Ryckoff Page 2 Amendment of the City's General Plan circulation element is now close to completion. This makes all the more critical city government's responsibility to get its act together. The circulation element, once finally revised, will tell / us what we must have to accommodate our own and regional traffic. We already know 1 what many of these needs are. They are impossible to address, some people say, under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We don't believe this. We believe positive action is possible, in time and at reasonable cost ... as long as the City Council faces up to the fact that our present street system is inadequate and must be upgraded. But this positive action must begin now. We would like to think of this as a New Beginning. In that spirit, we offer for the full City Council's consideration a first -draft action program indicating improvement projects and policy recommendations that we believe could measurably reduce our City's intensifying traffic problems. Our proposed program does not necessarily offer anything that is startling or new. Many of the things it mentions have long been projected in the General Plan -circulation element. Other items need no affirmation from the General Plan. Our congested intersections are enough. What our program is intended to do is to bring it all together, so that the City Council and the community can better understand where we are and what we need to get going on positive, workable courses of action that will give us an improved transportation system. So we do not present the program as a comprehensive recipe for traffic solutions; it is presented instead as a guideline for identifying needs and goals, and setting priorities. It is intended to be something positive and practical, an effort to bring timely consideration to what the City requires, and has the capability of securing, in immediate, short-range. and long-range traffic improvements, as well as transit service improvements and funding sources. If the City Council moves aggressively in pursuit of most, if not all, of the - solutions listed in this program, and if the citizens and business leaders of our community with equal dedication, support public transit, car-pooling and other -- transportation system management programs, we believe our City's traffic problem can be dramatically reduced. We know of no other way to accomplish this very necessary task, and now is the time for us to begin. Recommendation: We urge the City Council to establish as soon as possible an ad hoc Council committee whose purpose would be to assess the status of the traffic solutions listed in this program and report back to the Council with recommended policies, directives and priorities for action. As we see it, the alternative to a positive program of this kind is continued and worsening traffic congestion in our community. That is an unacceptable alternative; the people of Newport Beach deserve better. Either of us would be pleased to serve on the ad hoc City Council committee. From: Jackie Heather, Donald A. McInnis March 8, 1979 POSITIVE TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS PROGRAM The City Council of Newport Beach should commit itself to the aggressive pursuit of the following solutions to the community's existing and future traffic needs. It is understood that many of the listed solutions or projects have been the subject of various studies and discussions. The requirement now, however, is for positive action, both in terms of establishing priorities and obtaining funding from all available sources. I. Traffic Solution Projects A. Immediate Improvements Sign ficant improvement can be made in traffic service through relatively minor changes in our present road system. The City staff should be instructed to present a program for immediate implementation to the City Council. The program should include the following types of improvements: 1. Fine tuning of traffic signals to give more green time. 2. Allow demand -actuated signals to work freely, by cutting back on present Caltrans restrictions. 3. Coordinate traffic signals where possible, giving particular attention to signal adjustments at the Pacific Highway intersections with Dover and Bayside Drives. f 4. Add additional slow and right -turn lanes wherever right-of-way permits o it. 5. Add left -turn and double left -turn lanes where needed and wherever there's enough right-of-way. 6. Add additional through traffic lanes at intersections, expanding roadway if necessary where right-of-way permits. _ 7. Consider reversible lanes for car-pooling vehicles and buses. 8. Consider rush-hour turning restrictions. 9. Provide directional signing to help motorists bypass bottlenecks. B. Intermediate Range Improvements Many road improvements can begin quite soon if the City Council takes positive action to instruct the staff to immediately prepare the projects for implementation. Designs should be completed, right-of-way secured and - agreements made with various agencies. Where projects are ready to go, funding of construction is more easily assured. Construction should proceed at the earliest practical date. 1. Pacific Coast Highway a. Widen the existing highway to six lanes from MacArthur Blvd. to the City's western limits wherever additional lanes are needed to meet projected traffic. The Orange County Transportation Commission recently approved FAU projects for the segment from MacArthur to Bayside Drive and the California Transportation Commission is expected to privide funding under AB3020 for additional improvements. b. Remove parking in Corona del Mar during rush hours only, striping the highway to accommodate six lanes during these periods, with parking allowed during the remainder of the day and evening. c. Keep pressure on Caltrans to insure that they stick to the schedule for construction on the Back Bay bridge. d. Study different designs for the Jamboree -Coast Highway intersection,; including the at -grade solution with the Back Bay Drive bypass and the grade separation solution. Select both long-term and interim t• solutions and proceed with short-term improvements that result in the least congestion during the six -lane widening projects. e. Install a traffic signal at the entrance to Irvine Terrace. University Drive - Jamboree to Irvine Blvd. / Start the EIR for this project in order to determine the impacts on traffic circulation of the adopted alignment, alternate alignments or routes, and the "no -project" alternative. Determine the environmental impacts of the various alternatives on Upper Newport Bay, air quality, energy consumption and other relevant factors. �. San Joaquin Hills Rd. at MacArthur/Avocado Study design alternatives for the intersection and the one way couplet concept for Avocado/MacArthur including at grade and grade separated solutions. Select both long-term and short-term solutions and proceed with short-term improvements at the least. ` J 4. San Joaquin Hills Rd. at Jamboree Proceed with the free right turn project behind the Texaco station at the earliest practical date. 5. San Miguel San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Avocado . Encourage construction of this bypass route around the San Joaquin Hills Rd./MacArthur intersection, providing alternate access to Newport Center from Harbor View Hills and MacArthur Blvd. 6. MacArthur/Ford Intersection Expedite the cooperative project to secure improvements to Ford Rd. and to provide signals for channelization on MacArthur Blvd. 7. Jamboree - San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Pacific Coast Highway Widen to six lanes with a design adequate to provide for a double left turn lane to Santa Barbara. &a C. 8. Jamboree - Ford Rd. to Eastbluff Dr. Widen the easterly side to its full width adjacent to Ford Aeroneutronic and North Ford. 9. Eastbluff Dr. - Jamboree to MacArthur Get tFis road link completed from Jamboree to MacArthur at Bonita Canyon Rd. to provide an alternate route avoiding the intersections of Ford and MacArthur and Jamboree and Bristol. i 10. Campus and MacArthur Intersection Expedite the proposed intersection improvement C. Lon�c Range Improvements Tfiose major projects Which many consider to be achievable in the far distant future should be supported and pursued vigorously at this time. Only with consistent and constant pressure on the County and Caltrans can we insure early completion, in some cases, hopefully, within the next few years. SRotJoa enctHilTrenrs y rtiat ion , pion Corridor ementation of this transportation corridor, is crucial to the relief of regional traffic pressures on Newport Beach. This is the alternative means of getting the good things the Pacific Coast Freeway would have provided in terms of traffic service, but without the freeway's negative impact. The City Council must strongly support this project. A transit right-of-way should be included in its design. The traffic relief it can provide Newport is extremely significant. 2. Corona del Mar Freeway - Redhill to Bonita The City should strongly support completion of the freeway in the ditch with bridges at Campus, Birch and Jamboree. This improvement will remove heavy congestion about to occur on Bristol. The freeway design should be changed to include exclusive transit and car pool lanes next to the median in addition to three conventional freeway lanes -in each direction•. This design will provide for later connection to transit lanes on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and for their extension back to the San Diego Freeway. These "high occupancy vehicle" lanes should be continued south on MacArthur Blvd. by the State to the Newport Center Corona del Mar transit terminal in order to encourage increased public transit use. c '- C ivt'ufz/7r0o n 17 Transit Improvements increased transit service should be sought to give Newport's citizens greater opportunity to use forms of transportation. other than the automobile. The first three programs should be pursued with the OCTD within funding limitations. - 1. Increased Service Current routes should be improved with increased frequency of service to attract additional riders. Dial -A -Ride Service now provided in just certain areas of the County should be made uniformly available to all of the County. -3- ^ 3. Transit Terminal The transit terminal for which a site has been selected at Newport Center should be completed by the OCTD at the earliest possible date. 1 4. Public Participation The City Council should encourage and support citizen and business community participation in car-pooling, staggered work hours, the use of parking lots that provide trams and buses to recreational, shopping and job areas, and all other means of traveling more efficiently and economically. II. Circulation Element Many of the more significant above listed improvements or projects can be undertaken only if they are included, as anticipated, in the amended General Plan circulation element. It is therefore absolutely mandatory that the City Council give top priority to an early decision on any amendments to the circulation element. III. Funding Sources There is a number of funding sources available for the implementing of various needed traffic improvement projects. The City Council should direct the City Staff to identify the appropriate funding combinations from the following sources. A. Gas Tax Revenues 1. State and Federal gas tax revenues can be used for the state highway and freeway system which includes much of Newport's circulation system. We must seek a more equitable share of these funds for Orange County and ourselves, working with the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC). 2. Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funds are available to the City through the OCTC for arterial highway improvements. 1 3. Arterial Highway Funding Program (AHFP) contributions are availabTe to the City through the County for arterial highway improvements. 4. Local gas tax revenues are available. 5. Miscellaneous funds from other public sources may be used as well as the City's general fund. B. Funding from Private Sources 1. Road improvements alongside private development sites may be obtained as a condition of project approval. 2. An assessment approach (fee district) may be used to accelerate the funding of needed improvements many years in advance of the time the financing would conventionally be made available through local, county and state government agencies. -4- 0 TOM HIGGINS PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 685 ROSEMOUNT ROAD OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94610 (415)839.7702 February 23, 1979 Mr. D. Dmohowski Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Dmohowski: RECEIVED DComWP;,eat GAV Q-Fk,^-fa4% I have recently spoken with Dave Curry at Crain and Asso- ciates, Menlo Park, about your parking study for the city and your possible interest in the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Demonstration Program to assist in the development of a plan coming from the Wilbur Smith and Associates study and I am returning it to you under separate cover. First, a word about myself. I am an private consultant working from my home office in Oakland. I have done trans- portation policy consulting with several local, regional, state and federal clients since beginning my consulting several years ago. Some clients include the California Department of Finance, the California Assembly Committee on Transportation, the Federal Department of Transportation, the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission and consulting or policy research firms, such as Booz, Allen and Hamilton and the Urban Institute. It is my recent work for the Urban Institute and UMTA which should be of interest to you. UMTA has demonstration monies available to cities and counties to fund the planning and implementation of certain parking pricing and park and ride innovations. The Urban Institute, a non-profit think tank in Washington, D.C., provides staff and consultants - such as me - to localities at no cost to examine the feasibility of these innovations and help to pre- pare demonstration grant applications. I have worked with Hermosa Beach and Santa Cruz on two such studies and UMTA has recently approved preliminary applications for funding of demonstrations this summer in both places. I noticed the recommended parking program in the Wilbur Smith study pays attention to peripheral parking, shuttle buses, increased parking rates, and a residential permit program. UMTA is Mr. D. Dmohowski -2- February 23, 1979 interested in funding as demonstrations some arrangements and variations of these concepts. As Dave Curry probably mentioned to you, UMTA is particularly interested in parking pricing approaches to discourage auto use at certain times and locations and encourage transit utilization. Thus, increased meter rates, extended metered areas and especially prieed permits available to non-residents to ration parking in certain areas, all are of interest to UMTA. The demonstrationprogram provides two-year funding to cover 100% of the costs of enforcement, administration, bus opera- tions, bust -leases, permit printing and distribution and other costs. The program might allow the city to experiment with some concepts before making full commitment with its own funding. At the same time, a demonstration allows UMTA the opportunity to evaluate certain innovations and make lessons available to other communities. If the UMTA program may be of interest to you, please contact me and we can further discuss it. I can be reached at 415/839-7702. Sincerely, wq Tom Higgins TH:bz . 13.3b MINUTES February 22, 1979 ROIL CA1.1, INDEX Commission�Bala-4�k expressed his opposition to the postponement of public hearing regarding Item No. 13, due to the ct that the request was originally made by the West wport Beach Improve- ment Association, the President f which was pre- sently in attendance. Motion x Motion was made that the public hearing o tem All Ayes No. 13, Amendment No. 528, be held at this ev a� ing's meeting. Consideration of Master Plan of Streets and High- Item #1 ways and design alternatives for planned improve- ments; possible recommendations to City Council on CIRCULA circulation system revisions. TION , `5TM M Initiated By: The City of Newport Beach STUDY APPROVE ( Richard Hogan, Community Development Director, ex- CONDI- plained that this was the first public hearing be- TIONALL fore the Planning Commission on possible Circula- tion System Amendments. He stated that any de- cisions made by the Planning Commission would neces sarily go forward to the City Council as recommen- dations as to the specific type of major intersec- tions to be considered as part of the Circulation System. He further informed the Planning Commiss•io that an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan following the City Council'.s consi- deration would necessarily be initiated at a later date. He reminded the Planning Commission that these amendments had been considered at various previous Study Sessions. The public hearing was.opened in connection with this item, and Don Webb, Department of Public Works appeared before the Planning Commission to pro- vide background information regarding this pro- ject, including an explanation of the map relative to the projected traffic volumes and capacities of the system: -2- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES City of Newport'Beach o � o�om� y�2 February 22, 1979 2 ROLL CALL a) The 1990 traffic projection compiled by the Newport Beach Traffic Study prepare in 1974. b) The 1995 traffic projection from the mo del with the current Master Plan Amend- ment, December 1978. c) The Traffic Model Projection of traffic should the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor not be constructed. d) The capacity range of the roadway sys- tem. e) The average daily traffic as counted in 1977. Mr. Webb then conducted a review of the five reco mendations of the Public Works Department, as set forth in.the Staff Report. He further elaborated regarding Recommendation No. 1, on the San Joaqui Hills Transportation Corridor, stating considera- tions a) The Transportation Corridor would begin at MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita Canyo Road' and travel inland through San Joa- quin Hills area, and eventually meet th San Diego Freeway somewhere in the vici nity of Crown Valley Parkway, and would split the area between the San Diego Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway. b) With the incorporation of the Transpor- tation Corridor, there is -a projection 54,000 cars per day along. Coast Highway whereas without the Transportation Cor- ridor, the projection is 84,000 cars pe day. c) Without the incorporation of the Corrid traffic would be forced to use Coast Hi way or the San Diego Freeway. -3- INDEX i r gh- COMMISSIONERS p��p2 2�Z City it of Newport iM1 ea1. , f } February 22, 1979 MINUTES ROLL CALL Mr. Webb then discussed Recommendation No. 2 re- garding the Corona del Mar Freeway, informing the Planning Commission that the State is completing a frontage road project along Bristol from Universit Drive North/MacArthur Boulevard to Newport Freeway Corona del Mar Freeway. He further related that this frontage road would extend from Campus Drive via a ramp to the Corona del Mar Freeway, and its ultimate' connection with the Newport Freeway and t San Diego Freeway. Mr. Webb stated his feelings relevant to the necessity of the Freeway to accomc date the traffic projections for the area. He fur ther expressed the necessity of the�Freeway constr ction to tie into the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Mr. Webb further express ed that i.n the review of a circulation element of this.nature-, the Public Works Department has as yE been unable to go into sufficient detail regarding all the intersections in Newport Beach or to pro- perly study all alternatives available for a parti cular intersection, ihcluding an analysis of en- vironmental impact for the roadways themselves. Mr. Webb next stated that Recommendation No. 4, or Jamboree/Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road/ MacArthur/Avocado, included two alternates in ad- dition to several others that have been mentioned, that should be reviewed in the environmental pro- cess for these roadways. He concurred that Coast Highway would be involved in an extensive environ- mental assessment regarding its widening from four to six lanes, including other alternatives. He •" then described the "at -grade" and "grade-separatec intersection alternatives, as mentioned in Recom- mendation No. 4, for Jamboree and Coast Highway: a) The "at -grade" intersection would requir four lanes in each direction on Coast Highway with a double left -turn lane ont Jamboree Road and a double left -turn lar both ways on Coast Highway. Also requir ed to accommodate the heavy left turn me is the Back Bay Bypass, a circular road starting 1,000 feet down from Jamboree Road to tie into Jamboree. b) The "grade -separated" alternative would low Coast Highway to travel level over Jamboree Road and drop down, with a rais of Coast Highway 10 feet above the centE h u t ui e 0 e M. e r INDEX COMMISSIONERS 9cF F 2 February 22, 1979 MINUTES ROLL CALL of the existing intersection and a drop of Jamboree Road approximately 10 feet to provide clearance, providing also three through lanes in each direction or Coast Highway. It additionally would fe cilitate left turn movements and would interrupt traffic only on Jamboree Road and would not impede the heavier traffic on Coast Highway. Approximately 73% of the vehicles going through the intersec- tion would pass through without a traffi signal interruption, which would Greatly assist general movement of traffic up ar down Coast Highway. c) A modification of the "grade -separated" alternative would separate only the west bound movement, allowing the eastbound highway to continue through at grade anc join Jamboree Road. He expressed his concern about the inferior traffi service involved with the above-mentioned'modifice tion at Coast Hwy. and Jamboree, and the difficul with the I.C.U. of .9 at this intersection, also pending this modification. He conveyed that Publi Works has not completed an extensive design study to determine precise cost estimates and noise pre- dictions. He.further stated that at the present time, cost benefit data is not available to displ full design, quantity figures and precise cost es- timates, and that there may be modifications to th study that would be more acceptable, both monetari and to the general public that would result from more extensive reviews. Mr. Webb then communicated possible alternatives r garding the Avocado/MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills Ro intersection, referring to the maps in the Staff F port: a) An Avocado split apart from MacArthur southerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. b) An Avocado split apart from MacArthur northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. Mr. Webb further described these two alternatives ,( that would provide a "grade -separation" of MacArth -5- ay INDEX COMMISSIONERS 0 01 Chity ®f Newport Beach February 22, 1979 MINUTES ROLL CALL Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road and would propose that San Joaquin Hills Road be held at grade, providing an underpass, and drop MacArthur Boulevard north of San Miguel, going under San Joaquin and rejoining the frontage road halfway between San Joaquin 'Hills Road and Ford Road. Th- would allow heavy left turn movement from San Mi- guel to MacArthur at the same time the MacArthur move occurs, allowing only through traffic to be interrupted, providing a workable intersection. c) A third alternative would provide a lool ramp left turn move around and under Sai Joaquin Hills Road, allowing MacArthur Boulevard northbound to go through the intersection without confronting a dela! for the left turn move, further delaying San Joaquin Hills Road traffic. Mr. Webb then reminded the Planning Commission thi the nature of these items require a more adequate discussion in a preliminary engineering study ac- companying the Environmental Assessment, and he e; pressed his concern t.hat these alternatives not bi ruled out at this early.stage of the study. In conclusion, Mr. Webb addressed Recommendation No. 5, requesting that the decision regarding the future of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road be based on an Environmental Assessment which would evaluate both the effects of the construction of the roadway as well as the effects on the surrounding roadways of the deletii from the Circulation Element. In response to a question from Commissioner.Haidt inger, Mr. Webb communicated his uncertainty re- garding the completion date for the construction the Transportation Corridor. In response to a second question from Commissioner Haidinger, Mr. Webb stated that Public Works would like the en- vironmental process to begin immediately, and tha decisions regarding Jamboree Road/Coast Highway alternatives would need to be made within the nex 1z years, and that decisions on the MacArthur Boulevard/Avocado Road alternative were not quite as imminent. -6- I IND9X COMMISSIONERS o � 2 City of Newport Beacl February 22, 1979 MINUTES ROLL CALL In answer to a question by Commissioner McLaughli Mr. Webb replied that inasmuch as the roadway pas through both the City and County, Public Works wo request that the County share in the fundingg of t document. It was also further noted that t11e County's previous response to this study was that the request for the discussion and an environment document was premature. In response to a second question by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Webb fur ther concurred that the environmental assessment preceeds an E.I.R., that both are required precee i'ng any action, and that both would in all likeli hood be both extensive and expensive, the expense due to the need for an extensive public review pr cess, in which are prepared as many different con struction alternatives as possible, including pub lic hearings, cost of which would primarily be borne by the City. Commissioner Agee expressed his concern relative the seriousness of the decision and the large Cos involved. Commissioner Beek suggested a postponement of the decision on University Drive pending an examinati of facts concerning the effect on surrounding streets, traffic movements and air pollution. In response to questions by Commissioners Cokas and Haidinger, Mr. Webb gave the assurance that t• volumes discussed were one-way volumes rather tha two-way volumes. He further clarified that the c pacity figures reflected a major cross-section, a. suming the build -out designation in the capacity, not including the capacity of the existing system as it is today, but as proposed in the•Master- Pla,. demonstrating average daily traffic figures rathe than peak traffic figures. Commissioner Frederickson introduced a comment, e: pressing his understanding that there would be a more specific plan presented to the City Council, including definite street configurations and inte changes, including an E.I.R., as opposed to the _ concepts presently under discussion. -7- a d t t a rr INDEX COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES 9cm °mm�o �m City of Newport Beach m oo� glsmA oy y February 22, 1979 ROLL CALL Commissioner Cokas stated that his understanding was that they were to assess the traffic plan as currently presented, and thereafter determine the capacity and adjust the densities to coincide witl the traffic plan. Commissioner Haidinger then relayed his observatii that the only areas not reasonably close to the circulation system meeting traffic requirements ai the Corona del Mar Freeway and two segments of Nei port Boulevard on the peninsula. The public.,hearing was opened in connection with this item and Jeff Georgevich, Executive Director of the Friends of the.Irvine Coast, appeared befoi the Planning Commission to express his opposition to the staff's recommendation that the Commission endorse the idea of the San Joaquin Hills Corridoi due to the specific concern that the San Joaquin Hills Corridor would cut through the center of an area currently being considered as a national urbi park. He further stated his feeling that the cor- ridor would never be completed, due to the funding need of $500,000,000 for the project. He stated that the Federal Government and Caltrans make no ,provision for it, and it would necessarily be paid for by County taxpayers. He further concurri that Spyglass Hill, Harbor View Hills area would I severely 'impacted by noise and air pollution. Mr, Georgevich then proposed several alternate routes that would allow a through system for Newport Bea( without allowing existing regional traffic to run through, including a suggested eventual use of a Mass Transit System. Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her concern re- garding the fact that Santa Ana Freeway and San i Diego Freeway are already at capacity, and that h definite preference would be an alternate through freeway. In response to a question by Commissioner McLaugh lin, Mr. Georgevich stated that the Laguna Beach Council was wavering on the position of San Joaqu` Hills Corridor running through existing City pro- perty. He further stated that Laguna Beach Green• belt has stated that they will obtain an initiati, -8- INDEX i u- •e in )e :h C er i .v COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES City of Newport Beach o � February 22, 1979 2 ROLL CALL on the ballot to force that City not to build the corridor. In response to a question by Commissioner Freder- ickson, Mr. Georgevich told the Planning Commissic that the back-up program involved would be the Coastal Commission for the area from the ridge south, including 8,000 acres on the Irvine Coast as open space, and possible development based on environmental restraints. Mr. Georgevich also conveyed their intention to bypass the Corona del Mar area with the Corona del Mar Freeway down to Culver or out San Canyon, traveling around the Corona del. Mar area either onto Pacific Coast Higf way or San Diego Freeway. Margo Skilling appeared before the Planning Commis sion to comment regarding the "grade -separated" it tersections. She further commented, expressing he feeling that the full'impact of a project of this nature is lost in observing a small map on a draw- ing board. She stated her views .as to the distrac ° tion of this project to the residential atmosphere of the area, and she asked that the Planning Comm' sion take this into consideration. Debra Allen then appeared before the Planning Com- mission to present a question regarding the Trans- portation Corridor. Her question involved the on gin of the_80,000 to 90,000 estimated trips per de figure presented in the traffic study, to which Dc Webb responded that the figure was taken from the model studies, including the 50,000 downcoast de- velopment. She further stated on behalf of Harbor View Hills residents her concern regarding the strong endorsement of a one-way couplet for Avocac and MacArthur. She further stated her feelings re levant to the undesirability of the underpass con- cepts for San Joaquin and MacArthur and the pre- ferability of the present Master Plan, due to the undesirable freeway atmosphere, the high cost, anc the visual obstruction. Mrs. Allen stated her ex- ception to the inadequately detailed, conflicting quantified analysis. c -9- 4y in INDEX COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES City ®f Newport Beach O � F v��'f• v� o�� Zc 9c { �02 February 22, 1979 ROLL CALL Robert Shelton of the Irvine Company appeared be- fore the Planning Commission to suggest that the Planning Commission invite the County of Orange, which has been studying the Transportation Carrick to send an appropriate representative to discuss i detail the project. Dr. Robert Rosenberg of Broadmoor Hills appeared I fore the Planning Commission to express his feelir relevant to the lack of consideration given San Mi guel regarding this project, and the addition of complexity to an already complex situation, and t( ask that the City Planning Staff•consider other al ternatives to this project. Ronald Kennedy of 550 Hazel Drive then appeared bE fore the Planning Commission to review several points as quoted in the EIR for the downcoast play relevant to the San Joaquin Corridor and San Joa- quin Hills Road, and he asked that the Planning Cc mission consider this document. There being -no others desiring to appear and be heard regarding this item, the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. _ Mr. Don Webb of the Department of Public Works re- viewed the alternatives to be included for consid( ation: A. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Blvd./San Joaquin H` Road Intersection. 1) C-4 Avocado couplet split apart norther of San Joaquin 2) C-5 Loop ramp 3) C-6 Existing Master Plan 4) C-8 Grade separation taking both direc• tions of traffic underneath San Joaquin -10- INDEX COMMISSIONERS • n • MINUTES City ®t Newport Beach February 22, 1979 2 ROLL CALL B. Coast Hwy./Jamboree Road 1) A-1 At -grade intersection with back -bay bypass 2) A-3 Grade separation 3) A-4 Alternate westbound couplet overcrc sing grade separation Commissioner Balalis then expressed his desire to determine precise intersection geometrics immediai ly, with public hearings to determine such. In response to a question by Commissioner Cokas, Bill Dye, Public Works Engineer, informed the Plat ning Commission that the inadequately detailed, quantified analysis was due to the necessity to dE vote time to analyze 411 intersections, and refin( traffic projections, dnd he further assured the Planning Commission that when model studies are complete, -there will be sufficient data to make at immediate initial determination. Commissioner Beek offered as a point of view the possible requirement by the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance to produce a Circulation Element which is st ficiently clear to permit the calculation of I.C.U.'s. He expressed his belief that no result! would be obtained from the traffic -model for about a year. He further felt that it is not meaningfu' to determine precise intersection geometrics pos- sibly 15 years before building the intersection. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission amens Ayes x x x Recommendation No. 3 of the staff report to read,; Noes x x x x "That precise intersection geometrics be determine at the time roadways are widened to their ultimata cross section, realizing that in some instances rearrangement of turning or through lanes may be required in the vicinity of heavily used inter- sections.", which motion failed. In response to a question from Commissioner Haidi ger, Mr. Webb reiterated that the present Circula tion Element states that every "major" will have -11- s e if j INDEX CaMMISSICINERS • MINUTES City of Newport Reach February 22, 1979 2 ROLL CALL lanes, every "primary" will have 4 lanes and every "secondary" will also have 4 lanes, and he added that they don't as yet have projection splits for all turning movements. Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her concern rele vant to the absence of projection splits for all turning movements in the Circulation Element. She further expressed her preference to have precise intersection geometrics. Richard Hogan, Community Development Director, re- commended to the Planning Commission that they nex make a definite determination of preference to pre cise intersection geometrics at the present time o in the future. Commissioner Beek expressed his concern that the Corona del Ma.r Freeway is lacking left and right , turn ramps to connect•the Corona del Mar Freeway to the Newport Freeway east and west. Lion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission preset All Ayes the following amended recommendations to the City Council for their consideration regarding.the Circi lation System Study: 1. That the completion of San Joaquin Transporta• tion Corridor be strongly supported as a mean! of diverting regional traffic. around Newport_ Beach and thereby lessening the need to provii capacity in the City"s circulation system for this traffic. 2. That the completion of the Corona del. Mar• Fref way to Bonita -Canyon be strongly supported an( that the City should support the completion bi the Corona del Mar Freeway as far as Bonita Canyon Road and the completion of the turning movement ramps where the Coronz del Mar Freeway intersects the Costa Mesa Fwy. 3. That tentative intersection geometrics be de- termined now, and precise intersection geome- trics be determined at a time roadways are widened to their ultimate cross section, real- izing that in some instances additional turn- -12- INDEX .COMMISSIONERS . • MINUTES City ®f NeWport Beach February 22, 1979 2 ROLL CALL ing or through lanes may be required in the vicini of heavily used intersections. 4. That both an at -grade intersection and a grad separated intersection be considered in the a ternatives reviewed in the project design stu dies at both the Coast Highway -Jamboree Road intersection and at the Avocado Avenue/Mac- Arthur Blvd./San Joaquin Hills Road intersec- tion: a) Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Blvd./San Joaqu Hills Road Intersection: 1. C-4 Avocado couplet split apart no therly of San Joaquin 2. C-5 Loop ramp 3. C-6' Existing Master Plan .4. C-8 Grade separation taking both directions of traffic underneath Sa Joaquin b) Coast Hwy./Jamboree Road 1. A-1 At -grade intersection with bac bay bypass 2. A-3 Grade separation 3. A-4 Alternate westbound couplet ove'rcrossing grade separation 5. That decisions on the future of -University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road be based on an environmental assessment which would evaluate both the effect of the constru tion of the roadway as well as the effect on the surrounding roadways of its deletion from the circulation element. -13- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES T s Gaty ®f Newport Beach February 22, 1979 2 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission delete Ayes x Recommendation No. 1 of the Staff Report, which Noes x x x x x x motion failed. Request to permit the construction of a one-story office building and related subterranean parking Item #2 ' spaces in the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area SITE \ where a specific plan has not been adopted, and the PLAN RE - VIEW NO. acceptance of an Environmental Document. A modifi- 20 \ cation to the Zoning Code is also requested, since \ a 3'6" high ± solid masonry wall, surrounding a por \ tion of a stairway to the subterranean garage space APPROVE CONDI- encroaches to 'the rear property line (where the Or- dinance requires a 5 foot rear yard). TIONALLN \ location- A'portion of Lot 1, Block N, Tract No. 32 , Corona del Mar, located at 2800 East Coas .Highway, located on the southeasterly cor. ( ner of East Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue in Corona del Mar. Zone: -1 The public he ing was opened in connection with this item, and nest George, Applicant, appeared before the Planni Commission to state that he con- the Staff Report. curred with the co\en There being no othering to appear and be heard on this item,lic hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made thanning Commission make All Ayes the following findis:. 1. The proposed dnt is consistent with th General Plan anot pr 1ude the attain- ment of the Gelan objec Ives and poli- cies. 2. The proposed dent, as revise is a hig - quality proposal and will not adverse affect the benefits of occupancy and use of a 'sting properties within the area. 3. The proposed development, as amended, does t adversely affect the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improve- -14- j3.3a Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 1979 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 16, 1979 TO: Planning Commission. FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Circulation System Study (Discussion) Consideration of Master Plan of Streets and Highways and design alternatives for'planned improvements; possible recommendations to City Council on circu- lation system revisions. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Attached for the Planning Commission's consideration is a report from the Public Works Department outlining possible recommendations on the Circulation System Study. Additional material is being prepared regarding traffic volumes and capacity, which will be available prior to the Planning Commission meeting. If additional time is needed staff recommends that the regular meeting of February 22nd be adjourned to a special evening meeting on Thursday, March 1st. This would allow adequate time to forward the Planning Commission's recommendations on the Circulation System to the City Council for their meeting of -March 12, 1979. As suggested previously, the Planning Commission's recommendations would pertain only to possible circulation revisions at this time. Land Use alternatives consistent with the approved circulation plan will be developed following City Council review of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Suggested Action If desired; forward the following recommendations to the City Council for their consideration: That the completion of San Joaquin Transportation Corridor be strongly supported as means of diverting regional traffic around Newport Beach and thereby lessening the need to provide capacity in the City's circulation system for this traffic. That the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to Bonita Canyon be strongly supported. T0: 9anning Commission - 2. 3. That precise intersection geometrics be determined at the time roadways are widened to their ultimate cross section, realizing that in some instances additional turning or through lanes may be required in the vicinity of heavily used intersections. 4. That both an at -grade intersection and grade -separated inter- section be considered in the alternatives reviewed in the project design studies at both the Coast Highway -Jamboree Road intersection and at the Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road intersection. 5. That decisions on the future of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road be based on an environmental assessment which would evaluate both the effect of the construction of the roadway as well as the effect on the surrounding roadways of its deletion from the circulation element. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By_ 44 David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD/dt Attachment 7 • February B, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW RECOMMENDATION: That, after -public discussion at the meeting of February 22, 1979, the Planning Commission present the following recommendations to the City Council for their consideration: 1. That the completion of San Joaquin Transportation Corridor be strongly supported as a means of diverting regional traffic around Newport Beach and thereby lessening the need to provide capacity in the City's circulation system for this traffic. 2. That the completion of the Corona del Mar Freeway to Bonita Canyon be strongly supported. 3. That precise intersection geometrics be determined at the time roadways are widened to their ultimate cross section, realizing that in some instances additional turning or through lanes may be required in the vicinity of heavily used intersections. 4. That both an at -grade intersection and a grade -separated inter- section be considered in the alternatives reviewed in the project design studies at both the Coast Highway -Jamboree Road intersection and at the Avocado-Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road intersection. 5. That decisions on the future of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road be based on an environmental assessment which would evaluate both the effect of the construction of the roadway as well as the effect on the surrounding roadways of its deletion from the circulation element. 0 L DISCUSSION: The traffic projection data available to date for Newport Beach has been reviewed to determine if the existing circulation element should be modified. If the San Joaquin Transporation Corridor and the Corona del Mar Freeway are con- structed to connect and provide a means to divert regional traffic around Newport Beach, the existing circulation element will, on the whole, adequately provide for the traffic projected in the available studies. It must be understood - that the adequacy of the circulation element is dependent on the completion of all elements of the system. If an element is deleted, then the surrounding affected roadways will require additional capacity to take care of diverted traffic. The San Joaquin Corridor provides an alternate route for traffic to and from the south County area. Without the corridor, Coast Highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard will be impacted with a substantial portion of the 80,000-90,000 trips projected for the corridor. Every effort should be made to encourage the County (and perhaps the State) to construct the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. There may be some intersections that will require special treatment to reduce peak hour delays. This treatment could run from the addition of lanes on either side of the intersection to the construction of a grade separa- tion. Two of the intersections requiring special treatment have been pre- viously discussed: Coast Highway/Jamboree Road and Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard /San Joaquin Hills Road. Some others that will probably have peak hour congestion that would require special treatment are: 1. Jamboree Road/Bristol Street/Corona del Mar Freeway. (Separate loop ramp to freeway) 2. Jamboree Road/Ford Road/Eastbluff Drive (Add 4th lane northbound) - 2 - 3. Jamboree Road/San Joaquin Hills Road. (Add 4th lane northbound) 4. Ford Road/MacArthur Boulevard. (Add through and turning lanes) 5. Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard. (Expand the existing grade separation) Both an at -grade intersection and a grade separation appear to be feasible at both Coast Highway/Jamboree Road and at Avocado Avenue/MacArthur .. Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills•Road. This assumption is based on very preliminary information. The process for implementing new roadway improvement projects provides a means for studying project alternates in the initial environmental assessment. For projects of the magnitude of these two, it would be appropriate to do an extensive preliminary design study to evaluate all aspects of the alternatives before choosing the best one. This would also allow public hearings to discuss the specifics of each project and would give a better opportunity for the public to become informed and express its views. Attempting to pre -determine precise intersection configurations at the level of a circulation element review has the following disadvantages: 1. Inadequate detailed, quantified analysis. 2. Inadequate opportunity for public review and input. 3. May conflict with the requirements of the environmental process. The construction of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road is perhaps the most controversial segment in the circulation element. An environmental assessment document will be required to either delete the roadway or construct the roadway. Before any decisions are made concerning University Drive, it is recommended that an environmental assessment be prepared which would evaluate the effects of the construction of the project on the physical environment; as well as the effects on the surrounding roadways of its deletion from the circulation element. - 3 - E Detailed intersection capacity utilization (ICU) calculations have not I yet been prepared because of the unknowns which exist regarding an "acceptable" circulation element, and the need for completion of the major traffic model alternative projections. When the City Council has completed its determination of an acceptable circulation system (including intersection alternates), and the projected traffic volumes are applied to the system, the ICU calculations can be made. Based on this information, the land use element will be analyzed, appropriate adjustments can be, made, and the ICU's again checked. - 4 - February 22, 1979 t TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW DISCUSSION: FILE COP y DO NOT rreffl VE Attached is a map showing the City's adopted circulation element. The circles adjacent to various links in the system give information on the projected traffic volumes, existing traffic volumes and capacities. Following is an explanation of figures shown: Numbers are in Thousands Projected 1990 Average Daily Projected 1995 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)volume from Traffic (ADT) volume from the the Alan M. Voorhees Newport model run that incorporated Beach Traffic Study. 45 40 65 the land use as amended in December 1978. Roadway capacity range based on the number of lanes desig- 55 to Projected 1995 ADT volume from nated in the circulation 60 34 the model run that deleted the element and the estimated San Joaquin Transportation green time at intersections Corridor from the system. in the link. 1977-78 winter ADT volume The figures shown give a range of numbers that can be used in evalua- ting the capacity of the City's circulation element. As has been mentioned in previous presentations, the number of lanes provided in a reach of roadway be- tween intersections is not as important to capacity as is the number of lanes at an intersection and the amount of green time allowed for those lanes to pass through the intersections. As an example: Assume two intersecting roadways with a traffic signal that operates on a 60=second cycle: Each roadway is to receive 40% of the green time for through traffic. This would leave 20% of green time for left turns and yellow clearance time. 24 sec/cycle or 24 min/hr J 3 sec. Opposite moves run at same time. The single lane capacity is 4*---24 sec. 1,600 vehicles per hour of 3 e �3 sec.green time. sec.--'--24 sec. --to (5%) 3 mind hr Left -turn lane 24 min/hr (40%) Capacity Through Capacity 1-lane 640 vph 1-lane 80 vph 2-lane 1280 vph 2-lane 160 vph 3-lane 1920 vph 3-lane 240 vph 4-lane 2560 vph M February 22, 1979 Subject: Circulation Page 2 Element Review If each roadway has 2 through lanes each way and 1 left -turn lane each way, the capacity for both roadways would be each at 2(1280) + 2(80) = 2720 vph. If the signal cycle is adjusted to give one direction of through traf- fic 50% of the green time and the other 30% of the green time, the following capacities are obtained: %- 30 min/hr (50%) 6 sec clr. � g min/hr (5%) time 3 minj hr Left -turn (5%) lane 18 min/hr (30%) Capacity Through Capacity 1-lane 1-lane 80 vph 2-lane 2-lane 160 vph 3-lane 3-lane 240 vph 4-lane Through Capacity 1-lane 800 vph" 2-lane 1600 vph 3-lane 2400 vph 4-lane 3200 vph 480 vph 960 vph 1440 vph 1920 vph Again assume each roadway has 2 through lanes each way and 1 left - turn lane each way. The capacity of the favored direction is 2(1600) + 2(80) _ 3360 vph, a 24% increase in capacity over the first example. The capacity of the roadway with 30% green time is 2(960) + 2(80) = 2080 vph, a 24% decrease in capacity. These examples would result in an I.C.U. of 1.00 and are used to il- lustrate how the roadway capacity is affected by the distribution of green time to the various legs of the intersection. To relate these hourly volumes to average daily traffic (ADT), it is necessary to determine what percentage the design hour is of the total daily traffic. Normally the highest hourly volume occurs either in the early morning or late afternoon, and this highest volume is the peak hour volume. The peak hour percentage is the peak hour volume divided by the Average Daily Traffic (ADT). A low peak hour factor of 7% to 8% means that traffic flow is fairly evenly distributed over the 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. period. Higher peak hour factors from 10% to 12% indicate definite peak hours which usually indicate a high per- centage of commuter traffic. Peak hour factors for Newport Beach range from 6.8 % to 10.5%, with the average being 8 to 8.5%. Attached is a chart that shows capacities of roadways with 4 to 8 lanes, green times of 20% to 50% and peak hour factors of 7% to 12%. As can be seen, the capacity of a 6-lane facility ranges from 171,000 vehicles per day (vpd) for a freeway to 16,000 vpd for a roadway with 20% green time and 12% peak hour factor. February 22, 1979 Subject: Circulation Element Review Page 3 For purposes of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Traffic Engineer designated 36 major intersections to be evaluated. If we were to take each of these intersections and calculate I.C.U.'s based on changing one nearby land use for each leg of the intersection, and apply these.changes one at a time and then in all possible combinations, we would come up with 15 capacities. If two changes per leg are made, there are 255 combinations. If this process is done for all 36 intersections, 540 capacities are possible for one change per leg and 9180 possibilities for two changes per leg. The range of variables is too large to try to predict the intersection capacities in precise numbers for the entire circulation system. The capacity ranges on the attached map provide a good indication of the ability of the system to accept the amount of traffic projected by the var- ious studies and model runs. Don L. Webb Cooperative Projects Engineer DLW:jd Att. Iat cif s• PT" 1990 Arera9e DailykD rodectt0 aY7a arerage wur i it s, ?emu• �4e Tnflfc (A017 rOlute fru raffic (AT whit /sra the , ` ` ) !!!!1a the Alan M. Voorhees Mevgortdtt rvO tAat fnmryoratMt`&act Traffic Swdy. i5 he land use as aoeMM toecmbar 1970. Roadwa capacity range based an the nld.er of lanes desi9- 55 toroJN[N 1995 AM rolue froe noted 1n the ctrwlatfou34 he mdel rvn tLat deleted tLe 'e1mNt and the eitllattd an Joaquin Transportation a9nen tie at fntersectlensortidor frm the syitm. •. la the lint. 977-78 Inter ADT rO Unc \� e mil' `A�R!!t_ O , J tip !o ° • ;�{$1.��: V f itu u Ig . `.': ;tea i� - _ 1tc( • l yss G • �. ON SHIFTED IOR TO BAYSIDE DR. _ r s n N - ADO77-ED BY CITY COUNCIL scale— ' -'in feet VAI RCH 11,1974 ----�- t. .r n1 s ROADWAY CAPACITY • ' 15 Daily volume capacity = No. of lanes x lane capacity per hour Peak hour percentage Lane capacity per hour = 2,000/hr. for freeways 1,600/hr. green time for roadways Peak hour percentage = Highest hourly volume Daily volume = In areas with definite a.m. and p.m. peak hours for commuter traffic 10% to 12% of daily volume is common. = Most areas in Newport Beach with fairly constant volumes throughout the day, peak hours run from 7% to 9% of daily volume. Using the above information, the following capacities for freeways and roadways have been calculated: Freeways Peak Hr. Daily Traffic Freeways Peak Hr. Daily Traffic % Capacity % Capacity 8 lanes 7 229,000 6 lanes 7 171,000 8 200,000 8 150,000 10 160,000 10 120,000 12 133,000 12 100,000 Arterial Roadways 8 lanes 7 91,400 8 lanes 7 73,100 50% Green 8 80,000 40% Green 8 64,000 Time 10 64,000 Time 10 51,200 12 53,300 12 42,700 7 lanes 7 80,000 7 lanes 7 64,000 50% Green 8 70,000 40% Green 8 56,000 Time 10 56,000 Time 10 44,800 12 46,700 12 37,300 6 lanes 7 68,600 6 lanes 7 54,900 (Major) 8 60,000 (Major) 8 48,000 50% Green 10 48,000 40% Green 10 38,400 Time 12 40,000 Time 12 32,000 6 lanes 7 41,100 6 lanes 7 27,400 (Major) 8 36,000 (Major) 8 24,000 30% Green 10 28,800 20% Green 10 19,200 Time 12 24,000 Time 12 16,000 4 lanes 7 45,700 4 lanes 7 36,600 (Prim. & 8 40,000 (Prim. & 8 32,000 Secondary) 10 32,000 Secondary) 10 25,600 50% Green 12 26,600 40% Green 12 21,300 Time Time 4 lanes 7 27,400 4 lanes 7 18,300 (Prim. & 8 24,000 (Prim. & 8 16,000 Secondary) 10 19,200 Secondary) 10 12,800 30% Green 12 16,000 20% Green 12 10,700 Time Time In situations where roadways with approximately equal volumes intersect, the green time needed for each roadway would be in the range of 35% to 40%. Heavy left -turn volumes could cause a variance. When the major street intersects with a minor street, the major street green time could go to 50% to 60% with the minor street green time in the 20% to 30% range. Left -turning movements and yellow time require 20% to 30% green time. 13.3t7 r k anning Commission Meeting• February 8, 1979 17 • Study Session Agenda 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 2, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development Subject: Circulation System Study Topics to be addressed at this study session include: 1) A report from the City's Traffic consultant on the Traffic Model regarding the results of the General Plan reduction test. 2) Continuing discussion of roadway and intersection design alternatives. (Report from Public Works Department attached). Possible Revisions to Study Schedule As the Planning Commission is aware, the scope of the Circulation System Study directed by the City Council involves both an assessment of the Circulation Element and a review of possible alternate land uses on the major vacant sites. The City Council requested the Planning Commission's recommendations by March 1, 1979. It is staff's_assessment _that _ there will not be_adeg_uate opportunity before March 1st to complete the review of alternative land uses. Consequently, it is suggested that the Planning Commission may wish to revise its schedule to submit only the recommendations on the Circulation system by March 1st. Any recommendations would be forwarded. to the•City Council at the meeting of March 12th. Specific recommendations to the City Council on the circulation system alternatives can be considered by the Planning Commission at the regular evening meeting of February 22, 1979, and if necessary, at a special meeting on March 1st. Environmental Review Requirements The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council could involve the initiation of formal amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the adoption of City Council policies on preferred intersection designs, or a combination of both. In terms of environmental review required by the C.E.Q.A., an Environmental Impact Report would be required for changes to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, such as the deletion of the extension of University Drive. The E.I.R. would be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by interested agencies, which could cause some delay in the amendment process. - 1 - TO: Poning Commission - 2. 0 �8 if recommendations on intersection design are adopted in the form of City Council policies (without a General Plan amendment) no formal environmental review is required. This information is provided to give the Planning Commission some indication as to the procedures and time requirements for implementing recommendations on the circulation system. Land Use Alternatives Land use alternatives designed to be consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendations on the dirculation system will be available for consideration by the Planning Commission at the meetings of March 8th and 22nd, 1979. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD/dt Attachment 0 anning Commission Meeting Fouary 8, 1979 M Study Session Item No. TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 1. Eliminate the following alternates from further consideration: a. Coast Highway -Jamboree Road WAlternate A-2 (westbound overcrossing). Alternate A-4 (one-way couplet) b. Second Bay Crossings --(All aternates) c. MacArthur -Avocado -San Joaquin Hills (1) Alternate C-1 (existing with two-way Avocado and MacArthur). (2) A1'ternate C-2 (same as above with Avocado joining MacArthur northerly of San Joaquin Hills). (3) Alternate C-3 (same as C-2 with Avocado undercrossing at San Joaquin Hills). (4) Alternate C-6 (existing Master Plan Avocado/MacArthur couplet separating southerly of San Joaquin Hills). (5) Alternate C-7 (same as C-6 with a grade separated connection to San Nicholas Drive). 2. Direct the staff to proceed with the preparation of comparative data on the remaining alternates. DISCUSSION: The design alternatives presented at the December 14, 1978 study ses- sion have been reviewed. The following alternatives for reasons of high cost, relatively minor traffic service benefits, or community acceptance do not appear to justify further study: A-2, A-4, B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-6, C-7. The exhibits showing these alternatives are attached. The staff will be prepared to discuss in more detail the alternatives recommended for deletion if there are further questions. The alternatives selected for further study at Coast Highway/Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road/Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard will compare an at -grade intersection with a simple -grade separation. Utilizing as a base a combination of the Voorhees Newport Beach Traffic Study and the Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase 2, volume projections were esti- mated and used to determine the number of lanes needed. January 25, 1978 Subject: Circulation Element Review Page 2 At Coast Highway/Jamboree Road, Exhibit 1 (Alternate A-1) shows the at -grade intersection needed to handle traffic at a 0.9 or below ICU. The Backbay Drive bypass is needed in this concept to take care of the westbound left - turn desires that exceed the capacity of the double loft -turn lanes at Jamboree Road. Exhibit 2 (Alternate A-3) shows a grade separation favoring Coast Highway over Jamboree Road. The main advantage of this concept is that 70% of the vehicles utilizing the intersection have free movements with no signal to pass through. Coast Highway as it crosses Jamboree Road would be raised 10 feet and Jamboree Road would be lowered 10 feet. Due to the area sloping down in a westerly direction, the Coast Highway bridge elevation would be the same as the lot pad elevations along Bonnie Dune Terrace. The structure and fills would not impair views. The cost of the at -grade intersection widening, and the Backbay Drive by-pass road is approximately $1.6 million. The grade separation estimate is $2.9 million. Both of these estimates exclude right -of -Way costs. The at -grade intersection and bypass road require 3.1 acres and the grade separation requires 4.25 acres. Exhibit 3 shows the existing MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills Road inter- section and Alternate C-4, the Avocado/MacArthur couplet. For Alternate C-4 to work, the heavy eastbound to northbound left -turn movement must run at the same time as the northbound MacArthur traffic. During the P.M. peak hour, the I.C.U. would be 0.9. Exhibit 4 shows the lane requirements for Alternate C-8, a grade separa- tion at MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road. MacArthur would be lowered to pass under San Joaquin without changing the grade of San Joaquin. This alter- nate would cost approximately $1.3 million more than the at -grade intersection and would allow 43% of the cars to pass through the intersection Without inter- ruption. Westbound San Joaquin would experience some delay due to the heavy east- bound to northbound left -turn move. The I.C.U. would be below 0.9. Exhibit 5 shows the lane requirements for Alternate C-5, the couplet with the eastbound to northbound move being handled by a loop and undercrossing of San Joaquin. Avocado would also pass under San Joaquin. This alternative would cost approximately $1.0 million more than the at -grade intersection. It reduces the delay for westbound San Joaquin and allows southbound traffic to pass through the intersection without interruption. Approximately 33% of the traffic is uninterrupted. The traffic projections used to evaluate the above alternatives are on the conservative side. They were predicted using the more dense development projections for the TICMAP area and generation rates in the Newport Center area that are higher than those measured to date. We plan to compare this data With the Traffic Model projections before making final recommendations on the alternatives. zt January 25, 1979 Subject: Circulation Element Review Page 3 The traffic projections to be used for evaluating the alternatives will be based on the approved circulation element without a second bay crossing. Be- cause the high cost and environmental concerns would make implementation of a second bay crossing very difficult, it is proposed that further investigation of such a crossing would be performed only if the future -conditions traffic model data indicate an overwhelming need for the second crossing. 00, Don Webb Cooperative Projects Engineer DW: jd Att. 4 A-1 A-3 COAST �9��`?Ila�w�ra�3������.�' RD. ADDINNA . STUDY WARFA O ZZ . , ldl& . 1 Ak i CIRCULATION CONCEPTS MocARTHUR --AVOCADO ''SAN ,lOAQUIN HILLS A-2 A-4 COAST HIGHWAY -JAMBOREE RD. FI_INU&TED ROM KIM MSIDf RATON 2y n 25 0 EL(MINATE HOM FORM 63190110H . R THIS 119f CIRCULATION CONCEPTS SECOND BAY CROSSING e-1 s-s 8-3 E y y 24 27 171 A Illmimm FEW CIRCULATION _ CONCEPTS, Mac ARTHUR--A�'i�dADO' --SAS! JOAQUIN HILLS C afcT10N flCilON f i i SM." c i afttloN e EXHIBIT A� i Ef RM r7�1 'gig I � I- 1112EIE� 9 1 � l 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 EXISTING 1 SAN JOAOOIN MILLS 1 �r C�a Q 1 Q .. y i NEWPoNf LEVIER ilili� AT GRADE MOM 0i • [AN EXHIBIT 3 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD. and MAC ARTHUR BLVD. n r i s 1 31 SATE..... I.\+C AI VCA9O AVE: MAC AKWR SAC ...._• SHF_F.7 NO .......... OF .....__. 7o B ... •:He C` 0.:. X. ...... �VOLIADO AID. Wo kMUZ BLVD. --300- ----m» C `!O ...._ OF ....... JOB NO ...... I EX4151T ; 3- O���WPq�,r lz Department C'94 I1'O DATE: TO: FROM: January 31•, 1979 Dave Dmohowski Fred Talarico of Con,mWty Development SUBJECT: CEQA Requirements Circulation System Study Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the CEQA requirements as they pertain to the two optional methods of implementing City Council actions on the Circulation System Study. As I understand your project, it is as follows: (�D "1.) Approval of designs for a maximum of seventeen intersections within the pp City; and V�Z�A'- >> 2.) The deletion of University Drive from the approved Circulation Element." /Option No. 1 " General Plan Amendment - Circulation Element" (See attached chart). Option No. 2 "Policy Statement/City Council Action" The project described above could not be accomplished as a policy statement. Article 6 Section 65350-65361 prescribes the procedures for the adoption or amendment to any part or element of the General Plan. Fred Talarico FT/dt kNImxM3+0 a0 1N3Vl1MS� 11?Nvlo7 19 Na17d WNl.4 NOIIYNIW 19d :1J3ra8d N0 4hmmu 140 YNIWJaM �O 37UOhi :'ZI3 'IYNid d0 NOISY714UM7 YO 31UON (abtY�'I'IVH7 AVd 04� bl3 ?JNI� :10 NOII.WMi JgHm l•i JI99Nd N0461Wvw hAlw Nid eaewaewwauawwewwwaweeeaawwuuowwaaweoe daM3A3M ONtl M31n3ru N0113' jfWW M31n3b aanr3MI dNY l7NIyVaN JI'1911d N0113'IJWO'J d3',�3YTd 4LN34A•J07 ,IYbgJ d0 37UON dO 3JI10N JI'1911d d3M3t%3j 41N3WWOJ I d0 3JI1.ON d0 31NON 1 113 J3VVad (Sava 4 an) (4FM di) 91V14 SAVd $6 (4AVd'ON ww%vw) . 'M3Lq'd %WWWO) d9WW9r6 Wa ' 431V13/ N1NaWFJ09W+a 'AM N33XK an ja HOILYNAI fi a �avuJ Nmv)rl&r wam yvu gw Wn0%Vw d81.'IM,N01 "M dgloml dwm 4V 41NV11W7 NAM 1Jd1llN07 %1rn(nieatad d3411"m jD 3dJON 14011V/1'ILV „'J3d 3N11f dNd NoilN 17aP0A1 awe:awwewaseweeweeweueau d3ty _NOI1V:�3id 30 3)Ndh( NOLLV)I'Iddv ewaeewewouuewe WMNOJ 4311NaW qf 414KNLIUM 1�fr?19N-:Irk 17 m imulA6 Y 3nYA nVw 17 NW :j9NIdNI4 "MMOM. N30MMKS uw■ 9191AW07 3b1YNNOLL43nb '4'I 431a'IdW07 Irmri.mv aJ "A k1V617[Mr4ld awdaAA 11wil NOU MATH qua+ ('d'H W 2YX<� aNV 3N3+n41bv A301niW4Nol1 •213 IVNIJ d9'10 NOIIVJY1ddV 11 Avg (WOYI 4AV4 gm WW1 J 'hNtdNl� '313'IdwO) Adllk �VIjINI I'IviN3WN0'bIAN3 .- go11VNIWN9130 1"YalYfdd do 5100N NO Haw NOI1Y�vd3�d a0 RON IN3wa41naY AbOJfI1V1SNON li%M 4j (CAM 4) L/NIaNI�-WINIwNmItm a aa1tJ%N uV1rujv W 4 WnWI%VW i1JfG yll TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW DISCUSSION: The review of the Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highway presented to the Planning Commission by the Public Works Department covered the following'information: 1. 'A brief history of the system. 2. The elements of the system as they exist today and what the Master Plan provides. 3. Areas where problems exist or are expected. 4. A series of alternatives for several problem areas. 5. Items that should be covered in setting up an "Acceptability Criteria." 6. A review on roadway capacity and design as well as a description of Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) calculations. 7. A discussion of specific alternates at the Coast Highway/ Jamboree Road intersection and the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard/San Joaquin Hills Road intersections. 8. The roadway capacity of the system as it relates to the per- centage of green.time allowed at intersections. The packet of information accompanying the memo from the Planning Commission contains the staff reports which presented the above information to the Commission. In reviewing the existing circulation system, the traffic projec- tions used were primarily from the Alan M. Voorhees "Newport Beach Traffic Study" with some supplemental information coming from the "Newport Center Traffic Study, Phase II" prepared for The Irvine Company by Crommelin-Pringle and Associates. Information from the Traffic Model was used to some extent in the last two presentations. Detailed intersection capacity utilization (I.C.U.) calculations for all intersections were not prepared because of the unknowns which exist re- garding an "acceptable"'circuiation element, and the need for completion of the major traffic model alternative projections. There are a minimum of 70 inter- sections in the circulation -system that would require review.. A list of the intersections is attached. Some of these intersections have been -completed to their master plan configuration and would require only minimal reivew as long as no changes are proposed. A more detailed review was made of the Coast Highway/Jamboree Road intersection and the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard couplet intersection with San Joaquin Hills Road. These two areas were known to be problem areas, now in the case of Coast Highway and in the future in the case of MacArthur Boulevard. The alternates presented indicated that more than one solution is feasible. In general, the greater traffic service improvements cost more money. It was pointed out that,thA San Joaquin Transportation Corridor and Corona del Mar Freeway need to be constructed to connect and provide a means to divert regional traffic around -Newport Beach. If this is done, the existing circulation element will, on the whole, adequately provide for the traffic projected in the available studies. It must be understood that the adequacy of the circulation element is dependent on the completion of all elements of the system. If an element is deleted, then the surrounding affected roadway will require additional capacity to take care of diverted traffic. C11W OF NEWPORT BEWH COUNCILMEN G�3� � �y O�•9ti9S22i ROLL CALL January 8, 1979 MINUTES INDEX - 3. The following communications were referred as indicated: (a) To staff for reply, a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California objecting to the proposed o dance which would restrict the nu'4: r of non -related persons who may lawfully lib together in the same residence within the City Newport Beach, and asking for notificat n oof the time when the ordinance will come be a Council'. (685) (Attached) (b) To staff for reply, a letter from David R. Carpenter objecting to the 100% increase in CATV fees. (Attached) (6) 4. The following communications were referred to the City Clerk for filing and inclusion_in the records: (a) A letter from the Harbor View Hills Community Assoc ation commending Council action in connection witt`the CiicuTaEion'Elemerit of the enera fan. (KftacheJ) T (673) (b) A letter from the State Department of Transportation, Legal Division, opposing General Plan Amendment No. 78-2 and requestin 7 that this letter be placed as a part of the permanent record of the Council meeting of December•20, 1978. (Attached) (673) (c) A letter to the League of California C ies, Orange County Division, from the Cou y Counsel of Orange County regardin Section 16280 of the Government Code co cerning the availability of state funds om state surplus. (Attached) (2883) (d) A resolution from th ity of Garden Grove establishing its s ong opposition to the lack of the Sta of California's concern for the impac of State mandated costs. (1429) (e) Resoluti s from the cities of Santa Ana and F tain Valley requesting the State Le lature to strengthen regulations ating to State -licensed contractors. (1429) A copy of a letter to The Editor of the Daily Pilot from Richard S. Jonas, M.D. opposing the jet flights out of Orange County Airport and any further expansion of the airport. (Attached) (195) (g) A letter from the Statehouse Conference on Children and Youth requesting interested people to apply as volunteer Catalysts or Convenors for the Statehouse Conference. (20) (Attached) Volume 33 - Page 7 ( 7Y OF NEWPORT *ACH J COUNCILMEN ROLL CALL 9�AORNPpit tp January 8, 1979 MINUTES INDEX (h) A letter from the Local Agency Formation Commission enclosing their 1979 Filing and Hearing Schedule. (Attached) (20) (i) Notice of Public Hearing before the Orange County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 5955 of the California Harbors and Navigation Code to determine if the Acquisition, maintenance and operation of Parcel B, Doheny Beach should be undertaken by the Harbors, Beaches and Parka District. (20) (j) Notice of public hearing by the Local Agency Formation Commission regarding the proposed annexation to Costa Mesa Park & Recreation District designated Bristol/Red Hill Annexation. (Attached) (20) Excerpt from the Orange County Board of Supervisors Minutes regarding policy alternatives for expired airport leases at the Orange County Airport. (Attached) (195) (1) tice of hearing before the Public Utilities Co ssion on the application of Air Cal fornia to round off its increase in fare to the nearest dollar. The Second Inter m Opinion and Order authorizes Air Califo is to do so. (195) (m) Agenda o the Board of Supervisors meetings of Decemb r 19 and 20, 1978 and January 2 and 3, 197 . (20) 5. The following cla ma for damages were denied and Claims the City Clerk's r ferral to the insurance carrier was confirm d: (a) Claim of Rita Be for personal injuries Babb allegedly sustain d in connection with her (3147) arrest on October 8, 1978. (b) Claim of Rollie Bare a for property damage Barcume to his wife's campery when it was allegedly (3148) hit by a City vehicle December 19, 1978 at the intersection of n Joaquin Hills Road and Crown Drive. (c) Claim of Brooks Donovan fo property damage Donovan to her automobile when she s allegedly (3150) hit by a Newport Beach Police vehicl:e on December 18, 1978 on Marigold venue. The following claim was denied: (a) Application for Leave to Present a Late Greyshock Claim of Dan J. Greyshock for reimb rsement (3150) of towing charges when his car was t wed away from in front of his home at 281 Broad Street during a resurfacing prog am, Volume 33 - Page 8 P. ,- 1q8 HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BOX 54 CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 • December 17,'1978 Mayor Paul Ryckoff and City Council of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Councilpersonss 11 �. The Community Association of Harbor View Hills E"fi 'T wishes to commend the City Council and the Planning Commission for its current undertaking of the innovative Planning project to examine the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The examination of creative alternatives, the final determination of the roadway systems and a fair allocation of the roadway improvements to future development is in the best interest of residents and developers alike. It is agreed by all that traffic is a prime concern. • We fully support your efforts at good long range planning now, to seek real, positive solutions. This planning will represent a lot of hard work, and we, as an interested Association Board, want you to know that we appreciate your efforts. r Sincerely, Debra E. Allen Legislative Representative HVHCA Board of Directors 01 to ,•. • • 13.3a 33 January 2, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT REVIEW At the last study session, the Commission asked what has been done and what is being done to improve existing traffic problems in the city. Attached is Table 4 from the Newport Beach Traffic Study Phase III Composite Plan. This table prioritized the projects recommended in the study. A column has been added to show the project status as of January 1, 1979. The following summarizes major projects that have been constructed since the adoption of the present circulation element in 1974. These projects all have improved the capacity of Newport Beach's system. They have been com- pleted by the city on its own or in conjunction with the State, Orange County, bordering cities, or by developers. This list does not include projects such as San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin to Ford or Spyglass Hill Road from San Joaquin to San Miguel, used to serve a particular development. Location Description Year Agencies Involved Done in Addition to Newport Beach 1. Bristol St. -University Construct one-way coup- 1978-9 State Dr. to Campus Drive let to add 1 to 2 lanes in each direction. 2. West Coast Highway-- Add 3rd eastbound 1978 County AHFP 57th St. to Santa Ana lane and improve Orange River Ave. intersection. 3. Superior Ave. -Placentia Widen from 2 lanes to 4 1976-7 County AHFP to Industrial Way lanes with median. Costa Mesa 4. Jamboree Road Added 3rd lane in each 1976-7 County AHFP Eastbluff Dr. No. to direction and widened & County MacArthur San Diego Creek bridges. 5. MacArthur -Bristol Realign and widen road- 1975-6 State Jamboree to Bonita ways. Canyon 6. MacArthur Blvd. Widen to 3 lanes each 1974-6 Developer Jamboree to Campus way. 7. Ford Rd. -Jamboree Rd. Widen to provide 2 1975 County AHFP to MacArthur Blvd. lanes each way with Developers median in critical areas. Subject: Circulation Element Review Page 2 Location Description 8. San Joaquin Hills Rd.-- Widen to provide MacArthur to Marguerite 3 lanes in each direc- tion with a median Year Agencies Involved Done in Addition to Newport Beach 1975 County AHFP Developers 9. Balboa Blvd.--44th to Widen to provide 3rd 1974 County AHFP Coast Highway westbound lane and im- prove intersections at 47th St. & Coast Hwy. Transportation System Management (TSM) projects help improve the opera- tional characteristics of the existing system through the installation of traffic signals, intersection widening, restriping, and the installation of signal progres- sion programs. Since the adoption of the circulation element, 17 traffic signals have been installed. Some of the typical TSM (short-term improvements) projects com- pleted in the last 2 to 3 years are listed below: TSM (Short -Term) Projects for the Improvement of Localized ed Projects Location Description Year Completed 1. Westcliff Dr./17th & Signal upgrade. 1977-8 Irvine Ave. 2. San Joaquin Hills Rd.- Add right -turn lane Jamboree Rd. (restripe). 3. Irvine Ave. @ Bristol Add right -turn lane. St. 4. Jamboree Rd. -Santa Add signal progres- Barbara to Philco Ford sion system. entrance 5. Eastbluff Dr. -Jamboree Restripe,channeliza- to Jamboree tion and bike lanes. 6. Superior Ave. -Ticon- deroga 7. Coast Hwy. -Dover Dr 8. MacArthur Blvd. -San Joaquin Hills Rd. Restripe to provide acceleration lane. Upgrade signal control equipment. Add 2nd left -turn lane 1977-8 1978 1978 1977 1977-8 1976-7 1975-6 Agency Costa Mesa Newport Newport Newport Newport Newport Newport State Newport State Newport 3q 9. Balboa Blvd. -Newport Channelization & signal- 1975 Blvd. MacFadden Sq. ization project. Newport N .L • • January 2, 1979 3S Subject: Circulation Element Review Page 3 The city is continuing to plan and implement projects in the TSM category, as well as major capacity type projects. In many instances the prob- lem areas for traffic are along the city's borders or on State Highways. To make improvements it is necessary to obtain approvals and financing from the affected agency. These agencies include the Cities of Costa Mesa and Irvine, the County of Orange and the State. In addition to 9 traffic signal installa- tions currently being planned, below are listed some other TSM projects which will improve the traffic flow in and around Newport Beach: A. Signal system improvements: Location Improvement Completion In 1. Coast Highway -Jamboree Upgrade control, add 1979-80 State Rd. 2nd right -turn lane Newport from Jamboree to Coast Highway. 2. Coast Highway in New interconnect system 1980-81 State Corona del Mar 3. Newport Blvd.-32nd St. Upgrade signal control. 1979-80 State to Via Lido Newport 4. Irvine Ave.-Westcliff Interconnect signals to 1979-80 Newport Dr. to Mesa Dr. provide progression. Costa Mesa County 5. Jamboree Rd. -MacArthur Signal interconnect 1979 Irvine Blvd. to San Diego to provide progression. Freeway 6. MacArthur Blvd. -Bonita Signal coordination 1980 State Canyon to San Diego project Freeway 7. Irvine Ave. @ Univer- Upgrade signal control- 1979-80 County sity ler. Newport B. Construction projects to improve capacity: Location Project Completion B� Description in 1. Ford Rd. -MacArthur Realign & widen Ford 1979 Irvine Blvd. Rd. &.add left -turn Newport lanes to MacArthur Blvd. State County AHFP Developer 2. Jamboree Rd. -San Construct free right- 1979 Newport Joaquin Hills Rd. turn lane from San County AHFP Joaquin to Jamboree. January 2, 1979 Subject: Circulation Element Review 3� Page 4 B. Construction projects to improve capacity (cont'd): Location Project Completion Description in By 3. Campus Dr. -MacArthur Widen northbound lane 1980 State Blvd. on MacArthur, and im- Newport prove signal and chan- Developer nelization. 4. Jamboree Rd. -Fairchild Add 3rd northbound 1979-80 Irvine to Campus Drive lane. 5. Ford Rd. -MacArthur to Construct northerly 1979-80 Developer San Miguel side of road adding 2 Irvine lanes. 6. Coast Highway -Dover Widen Coast Highway to 1976-81 State Drive --Bridge Improve- 7 lanes and improve Newport ments Dover Drive. The traffic phasing ordinance study shows the following intersections have existing I.C.U. values of .90 or greater. Listed are the minimum improve- ments to bring the I.C.U. below 0.90 and the date the improvements are expected to be completed: Location Existing I.C.U. After Improvement Completion 1'. Bristol St. North - Campus Drive 2. Coast Highway -Orange Street 3. Coast Highway -Balboa/ Superior 4. Coast Highway -Dover 5. Jamboree Rd. -Campus Dr. 6. MacArthur Blvd. -Campus Dr. I.C.U. Improvement 1.00 .81 0.91 .66 0.94 .79 0.99 .58 1.13 .89 0.94 .82 7. MacArthur Blvd. -Ford Rd. 1.01 .83 Proposed Date Stripe extra Completed right lane 12/78 southbound. Add 3rd west- 1984-6 bound lane. By City or State Widen both ? Coast Hwy & By State or Superior. City Widen Hwy 1981 Bridge and By State & Dover. City Widen north- 1979 bound lane. By Irvine Widen north- 1980 bound approach By State Realign Ford, 1979 add lanes & By City add left -turn lanes to MacArthur. W-1_ r. • • 37 January 2, 1979 Subject: Circulation Element Review Page 5 The projects listed for implementation in the future have in the most part been funded. We hope to complete all of the listed projects as well as additional projects which lead to the completion of the circulation system as funding becomes available. Don Webb ti Cooperative Project Engineer DW:jd Att. • TABLE 4 • NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III COMPOSITE PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS Key to Table (1) F - Freeway 8 lanes (2) N - New Construction M - Major 6 lanes W • widen P - Primary 4 lanes M • Modification S - Secondary 4 lanes 8 • Bridge Q Project Name and Limits o m 2 Project Status as of 1/l/79 ax zGuw+ A 5 Coast Highway Upper Day Bridge a M D Design 90% complete, R/W acquisition in progress. Dover Drive Interchange Advertise for bids 12/79, complete 12/81. A 6 Coast Highway from Jamboree Road M W FAU funding applied for 9/78, design 6 construc- tion date undertain for Bayside Dr. to Jamboree. A 8 Coast Highway from MacArthur Blvd. P through Corona del Mar A 7 Coast Highway from MacArthur Blvd. M to Jamboree Road A 28 University Drive from Tustin Avenue P to Corona del Mar Freeway A 29 University Drive Bridge P A 30 Del Mar Avenue from Newport P Freeway to Tustin Avenue A 14 Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive P to Coast Highway M Signal coordination being upgraded by State in 80-81. W FAU funding applied for 9/78, design a construc- tion dates uncertain. N Uncertain. 0 W W A 24 San Joaquin Hilts Road from M W Uncertain. In County and Costa Mesa, R/W acquisition on hardship basis. Btwn Coast Hwy 6 Cliff Dr. construction com- plete 12/81 Cliff to Westcliff-Construction when adj. development occurs. Completed 1975, MacArthur Qlvd.to Marguerite Ave. A 27 Ford Road from MacArthur Blvd. to P W Completed 1975. Jamboree Road B 4 Coast Highway from Dover Drive to P M No present plans for implementation. Newport Boulevard 8 3 Coast Highway -Newport Boulevard M N " 8 1 Coast Highway from Newport Blvd. M N So. side widening--57th St. to Santa Ana River, to Santa Ana River completed 1978; remainder not yet scheduled. B 2 Interchange at Newport Freeway Ext. M N Uncertain. B 9 Superior Avenue from Coast Highway P M5N Completed Placentia to Industrial Way 1971. to Newport Boulevard Costa Mesa to complete Industrial Way to 17th in 1981. Uphill from Coast Highway to be done in 3-4 yrs, B 17 Jamboree Road from Coast Highway M W E. side --Santa Barbara to San Joaquin completed to San Joaquin Hills Road in 1976. Other areas to be constructed as ad. Jac. development occurs. B 18 Jamboree Road from San Joaquin M W Completed 1975, Hills Road to Ford Road B 19 Jamboree Road from Ford Road to M W Construct as adjacent development occurs on Bison Avenue east side. 8 20 Jamboree Road from Bison Avenue to M WSB Eastbluff Dr. No. to MacArthur completed 1977. Corona del Mar Freeway East side Bison to Ea stbluff 1981-2 EM 301 B 31 Avocado from Coast Highway to P N&W Avocado 1/2 complete in 1979. San Joaquin Hills Road B 32 San Miguel from San Joaquin Hills P N&W Completed in 1977. Road to Ford Road B 35 Newport Boulevard from Coast M W&B Construct portions in 3 to 5 years. Highway to 30th Street C 21 State Route 73 from Coast Highway M W If couplet with Avocado implements, no to San Joaquin Hills Road additional widening necessary. C 22 State Route 73 from San Joaquin M W Construct in future as needed. Hills Road to Ford Road C 23 State Route 73 from Ford Road to M W Construct in future as needed. Bison Avenue C 25 San Joaquin Hills Road from M W Construct in future as needed. Marguerite Avenue to Spyglass Hills Road C 26 Bison Avenue from MacArthur M N&W Construct when adjacent development Boulevard to Jamboree Road occurs. C 10 15th Street from Superior Avenue P N&W Construct when adjacent development to Coast Highway occurs. C 36 Balboa Boulevard from 33rd to 44th P W Construct in future as needed. D 11 17th Street from Newport Freeway P N Costa Mesa project to be completed in to Orange Avenue 1981. D 12 17th Street from Orange Avenue P W Uncertain. to Irvine Avenue D 13 Westcliff Drive from Irvine Avenue P W No additional widening planned. to Dover Drive D 15 Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive P M&B Uncertain. to Irvine Avenue D 16 Irvine Avenue from 15th Street to P W No additional widening planned. Cliff Drive . D 33 Back Bay Drive-Westcliff Ext. from S N&W Uncertain. San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Dover Dr. D 34 Upper Bay Bridge S B Uncertain. NOTES ON CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 1978 1.: Circulation System Design. Determine what overall circulation system would be acceptable to residents. 2. General Plan Alternatives. Develop a range of land use options for consideration by the City Council in relation to General Plan designations and Planned Community Districts. 3.` Commercial Development Guidelines. Consider limiting future commercial eve opment to that needed to serve the population of Newport Beach. 4. Objective Development Criteria. Develop objective standards, criteria, or reasons for decisions on amounts of development to be allowed. ' 5. Residential Development Standards. Consider adopting stricter regulations controlling height, mass or bulk'of residential structures to preserve character of existing neighborhoods. 6. Waterfront Regulations. Adopt specific zoning regulations controlling development on waterfront properties, including limiting development to water -dependent uses. 7. Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Require condominium con- versions to provide all amenities normally associated with new residential developments including parking and common areas. 8. Variances and Use Permits. Consider stricter application of development standards in reviewing applications for variances and use permits. 9. Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Review intersections to be included in review of proposed development. 10. City Council Direction to Planning Commission. To clarify City Council direction, distribute verbatim copy of City Council motion to Planning Commission. 11. Clarification of Planning Commission Recommendations to City Council. Consider having maker of motion state reasons for vote, plus other. comments, to be included.in the record. 12. Planning Commission Priority Projects. Distribute list of Plan- ning Commission projects to City Council for their review and information. October. 31, 1978 Advance Planning Division DJD/kk 4 lanning Commission Meetin • December 21, 1978 Study Session Agenda No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 15, 1978 RLE TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Circulation System Study Examination of possible design alternatives for planned road improvements. Discussion of "accep- tability" criteria. This is the second in a series of public forums scheduled to be held between now and the Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1979 in connection with the Circulation System Study directed by the City Council on November 27, 1978. The City Council's specific instructions on the conduct of this study are as follows: a) "Determine acceptability of present Circulation Plan and propose necessary amendments, b) Examine a series of design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted Circulation Element, c) Select those, alternatives whibh appear most feasible for development, N d) Determine the carrying capacity of the accepted system and alternatives, e) Alternative land uses should be examined to determine if traffic generation will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system..." The subjects of this study session are design alternatives and acceptability criteria. 'A staff report from the Public Works Department on these subjects is attached. Schedule of Future Sessions Due to the complex technical nature of this study and due to the expected level of public interest in specific traffic issues and design alternatives, it is suggested that the Planning Commission may wish to schedule additional sessions, possibly during the evening hours. The following revised scheduled is proposed: (changes underlined) . _ -4 TO: elanning Commission - 2. Planning Commission Meeting Tasks/Subjects for Discussion December 7, 1978 Description of existing Master Plan (Regular Meeting) of Streets and Highways. December 21, T978 Examination of possible design (Regular Meeting) alternatives for planned road improvements. Discussion of "acceptability" criteria. January 4, 1979 Discussion of capacity of (Regular Meeting) Circulation System, levels of service. January 11, 1979 Continuing discussion of desi n Special evening alternatives, accepta ty criteria, meeting) and system capacity. January 18, 1979 Formulate recommendations on (Regular Meeting) Circulation Element to be used in evaluating land use alternatives for the major vacant sites. February 8, 1979 Develop land use and density alter- (Regubar Meeting) natives; evaluate possible development in terms of estimate of accepted Circulation System's ability to handle traffic. February 15, 1979 Additional session, if needed. pecia meeting) February 22, 1979 Adopt final recommendations to City (Regular Meeting) Council on Circulation Element and land use alternatives. The Planning Commission may wish to hold a number of these public forums at the evening meeting rather than at Study Session to encourage greatdr public involvement. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD/dt Attachment: 1) Memo from Public Works Department 3 December 14, 1978 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: CIRCULATION SYSTEM STUDY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Attached for the Planning Commission's information are: A. Four circulation alternatives for the Jamboree Road -Coast Highway intersection (presently shown as a standard intersection on the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways). B. Three circulation alternatives for a second Bay crossing northerly of Coast Highway (this item is not an element of the adopted Master Plan of Street and Highways? 1. Eight circulation alternatives for the MacArthur -Avocado - San Joaquin Hills Roadway system (presently shown as a one-way couplet on the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways). D. Two alternative alignments of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road (the southerly alignment is shown on the adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways). E. Alignment of Corona del Mar Freeway between Campus Drive and Bonita Canyon Road (this is the adopted route except that a northbound Jamboree Road to westbound freeway ramp has been added in the easterly quadrant of the overcrossing) An additional drawing is included showing a connection to the future San Joaquin Hills transportation corridor. F. Various midblock and intersection cross sections for major, primary, and secondary streets. Because of the complexity of the alternatives and to permit the Commission to familiarize itself with the circulation concepts, staff does not plan to make a formal presentation on the alternatives at the December 21, 1978 study session. It is planned to make a formal presentation and analysis at a subsequent meeting; however, the Commission may desire to hear public comments reaardino the alternatives. "ACCEPTABILITY" CRITERIA The Commission may desire to use the time reserved for the Circulation System Study to develop a list of criteria to be used to evaluate, compare and rank the alternatives. In addition, the Commission may desire to direct the staff to make a preliminary analysis using the "acceptability" criteria which would be included in the future presentation on alternatives. Circulation System Stuffy • Page 2 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION The following information will be distributed to the Commission during the study session on December 21, 1978: (1) Chapter G-Criteria, Part III--Highway-Des (2) "Employing Intersection Capacity Utilization Values to Estimate Overall Capacity" by Robert W. Crommelin, P.E., Traffic Engineering, July 1974. These items may be useful to the Commission in preparing for the dis- cussions on levels of service and design alternatives, and formulating recom- mendations on the circulation system. Respectfully, Public Works Department Benjamin B. Nolan, Director By Bill Dye Assistant City Engineer BD:jd Attachments PAGE 3 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 CIRCULATION CONCEPTS COAST HIGHWAY -JAMBOREE RD. A 596E 4 d-1 s-2 s-3 CIRCULATION CONCEPTS SECOND BAY CROSSING B "/ Ab CIRCULATION- CONCEPTS Mac ARTHUR—AVOCADO —SAN JOAQUIN HILLS C CIRCULATION CONCEPTS MacARTHUR —AVOCADO —SAN JOAQUIN HILLS C W UNIVERSITY DRIVE orange coanly airport mesa L ee. newport bay CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY orange county airport mesa 1 rhtese.so. n 1 1 A J Lt• CORONA DEL MAR FREEWAY/ SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR T lte• Bin WnR R6EAT: 3 laces each ua - left -turn lone - neargenry paekin,--/bike Tana 1]3• Ig` a ` 6•am- n=R R2RRI.T- 3 lance each way - left -turn lane - aearganny parking•*/bike lane - bike lane/rtght-turn lane 3J6• 1 1—' �! a6•{ I r-.\ II Sal C/ 1 -�--�� A 4Q WOR 5)R z 3 laces each way - anaegancy packing --bike law - bike lane - right -turn ]ens • 332' , gyp.. W02 S4> 4.' 3 laws each way - double left-tucn law ewcgency parking••/bika lane ve•-lal•• WO3 S2RS0. ]levee each way - dochln We turn lane - awecqucy packieg••/bike lane - bike lane+ - right -tarn lane 1ae• p• RVOR $TARtT: J lanes each way - double left -turn lane -sight-turn aeoalecatlon lane -bike Iona - I ht-tutu lane Intersections 326- 10• a6• 16. at-� p. a O EpM• � I ! r I �u WOR 6TR6r: 3 lanes each way - vedian - wacgenny pa)king•y bike lane WOA 5)RtTx ] lama each way - aedlen - awerge cy packlag••/ • hake lane na• gN I I I 1 i! 11a: WoR SnUtErz 3 lanes each way - eadian - acargency parking-/ bike lane 'i>• RIRt e` al• la` IV e0 kl all¢ ! 1 { 1 ( 4Q WOk Sta)22 M OUPIM: 3 lance each way - anlian - bike lane MAJOR STREET CROSS *Adopted Section for Coast Highway (Dover Dr. to Newport Blvd.) mid- w SECTIONS N IN T W ffi 1 P.tR I elrs PNIIeMY 5184^tr 2 lame each'V -left h¢n ]am - parklry/htke lava 6• • PRIKAKI SYRIVI: 2 lama each as, - left ass tam - ;ss i &/rlgtt each lase Ll } } } : Ii a s PRIXARf S'11BE11 2 lama each asY - left ben tam - Patkbee/hlke lane blke lase - rlKht ties lam 110• R• Q O 1,,EK E � r-r � � } } P�1'- ♦ FRIXARY E"KEI' 2 lama each aaY - eaahla Lett tern lam - Parkfee/pike lam 1 1r 9T �1 R11t6 PKIE"I 9'IRQf: 2 lama ears sal - dauhle left tun Las - P klne/hlke lam "get tern lane 1- R 1' PRIXA.fI e?(e^: 'Al —leach lame each aaY - doable left her. lane - Wklnf/MY- J.,1•IYr tan _ I" teen ,as Intersections PRIMARY nc• SO' ]<• 36' 34' le- BIKE PAI'NRY STREET: 2 {lanes each vay-oeliaa-energency Parklnce,'bake Use ln• 30' 3]• 16' )]• p• PARK E I I I IE PAPP a P MLARY STREET: 2 lanes each way -median -parkin -bike lanes 300' PARE , \ • —, RIXE I I � ► ► �� �,--- a O PRIMARY STREET. 2 lanes each say - 2 vay left-tury lane parking/bike lane mid_ STREET CROSS SECTIONS • T aa• 19' IS• 33' 10' rkra eku Q(D BI•.D I I I BIFL S=Nt`- SY ST2EEYs 2 lanes each vaY - patklag/ bike lane 9a• L ¢ Q O �PABF ¢ I I I C eAM �� T SLKG: MX SYFEEI" 2 lases each way - packing - blk. lan. ID• 26• \ 26• 10` a s !i li ==10Mc SY UcTt. 2 lmea each ray - I.CC-tvm lane - nc packing - no bike U.. 90` SLGLNDARY S210cETs 2 lance each way - loft -tam La. - bike 1mc. 80' ,• xr ID• n` e• SEm•:D SY SSPEBY IF)DW=: 2 lace. each vay - left tom 1. - hike lane Intersections 1 Be• et¢ I I I I iM Q i SLCOHDMy SYnb¢f: 2 lanes each r y - packing/ bik. lane E , L • a ) AFF E I I I IL eAftF r 51=WDkM 511t=t 2 lanes each way - yatking - blk. lan.. B6• L -,L! I � 1IF.- SEOONGAk2 SI=Ccs 2 I.e...eh We, left -torn lane - Dike hoes midbiock SECONDARY STREET CROSS SECTIONS, • 0 A D 0 46 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Public Forum on Circulation Stem Beginning on Thursday, December 7, 1978, at 2:00 p.m., the Newport Beach Planning Commission will conduct a series of public discussions regarding the existing and projected circulation system for the City., All residents, property owners, community associations, business people, and other Interested groupsare invited to participate in this important discussion. The objectives of this endeavor include the following, 1. To determine the acceptability to the community of the presently adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and propose necessary amendments. 2. To examine a series of roadway and intersection design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted circulation plan. 3. To select those alternatives which appear most feasible to implement. 4. To determine the carrying capacity of the accepted system. 5. To determine what level of future development would be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable street system. Items for review at the December 7 meeting include: 1. An examination of the Circulation Element roa-dway classifications and designations, a,nd the existing road system. 2. An examination of planned improvements to the arterial system and major intersectionc s alled for by t'he Master Plan. ,a , `•;, Displays and printed material will be available at the meeting. These public forums are scheduled to occur as part of the regular Planning Commission Study Sessions of December 7 and 21, 1978, January 4 and 18, 1979. Meetings are held in the City Council Chambers. Written or oral .testimony by interested groupsand individuals is encouraged. Correspondence should be addressed to the Planning Commission. For additional information, call David Dmohowski, Adva-nce Planning Administrator at 640-2261. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION 0 December 20, 1978 -13iT 1 FILE COPS' DO NOT FE(t.".0i1E FROM: Public Works Department " SUBJECT: CIRCULATION SYSTEM STUDY, "ACCEPTABILITY" CRITERIA INTRODUCTION: In recent years decisions regarding transportation have shifted from the primary consideration of cost -benefit ratio towards techniques which in- corporate a much wider range of values. These values are sometimes difficult to define precisely and to quantify; thus the evaluation process can become sub- jective unless there is a conscious effort to make objective determinations. Some of the possibilities are discussed below. Voorhees Report: The 1973 Newport Beach Traffic Study by Alan M. Voorhees &.Associates used a spectrum of criteria to evaluate alternate transportation networks. The 14 items used in the evaluation were: 1. Newport Beach public acceptance and support. 2. Community environmental protection/enhancement. 3. Conformance with Coastal Highway planning policy. 4. General transportation service. 5. Reduction -elimination of congestion, accident, parking problems. 6. Feasibility of funding and building. 7. Traffic accommodation across the bay. 8. Accommodation of east -west through traffic. 9. Special considerations. 10. People access to concentrated areas. 11. Integration and balance between auto transit. 12. -Ability for handling seasonal traffic surges. 13. Utilization of freeway systems. 14. Compatibility of planning with other agencies. l3.3a E .,. __ r-- l December 20, 1978 Subject: Circulation System Study, "Acceptability" Criteria Page 2 As each alterhate-wasevaluated, each of the items were assigned a rating of good, fair, poor, or insignificant or uncertain. The results of this evaluation process are shown in the Voorhees Report on pages 16 and 17 of the Phase III -Final Report, and the 14 items are further defined on pages 10 through 15. Copies of the three reports produced by the study are being printed and will be provided to the Commissioners for their use. Suggested Procedure: To evaluate alternatives for specific elements of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, the following items are suggested as a means of rating the alternatives: 1. Traffic service. 2. Cost. 3. Feasibility of funding and building. 4. Community impacts. 5. Environmental impacts. 6. "No Project" effects and impacts. These items are further defined in Exhibit 1 attached. The same rating procedure of good, fair, poor, or insignificant or un- certain as used in the 1973 Traffic Study could be used to evaluate the alterna- tives. This evaluation should only be considered as an initial step in a com- plex process, i.e., it Will only identify those alternatives which are "poor" and merit no further investigation, and identify those that should be further analyzed to identify the "best" one. An analysis of the alternatives using the "Acceptability" criteria and the evaluation process desired by the Planning Commission will be included in the formal presentation at a subsequent meeting. Respectfully, Public Works Department Benjamin B. Nolan By�.��° Bill Dye Assistant City Engineer BD:jd Att. 83 EXHIBIT I ACCEPTABILITY" CRITERIA 1. Traffic Service a. Ability to meet forecast volumes. b. Effect on total vehicular miles traveled (VMT). c. Bicycle traffic provisions. d. Pedestrian provisions. e. Public transportation opportunities. f. Safety 2. Cost a. Total cost. b. Can project be phased to meet required traffic with available funds? 3. Feasibility of Funding and Building a. Potential sources of funding and availability. b. Right-of-way problems. c. Can the necessary permits from State and Federal regulatory agencies be obtained? d. Probable Newport Beach public acceptance and support. 4. Community Impacts a. Long-term impacts (1) Noise (2) Air quality (3) Views (4) Esthetics (5) Can provisions be made to minimize items (1) through (4)? b. Short-term impacts (construction related factors) (1) Noise (2) Dust (3) Traffic disruption (4) Can provisions be made to minimize items (1), (2) and (3)? 5. Environmental Impacts a. Long-term impacts 0 Natural environment (2) Endangered species (3) Erosion (4) Can provision be made to minimize items (1), (2) and (3)? Exhibit I (cont'd) gy b. Short-term impacts (construction related factors) 1) Erosion 2 Endangered species 3; Noise (4) Can provisions be made to minimize items (1), (2) and (3)? 6. "No -Project" Effects and Impacts a. Traffic service on arterial streets that must accommodate diverted traffic. b. Traffic service on secondary and local residential streets. c. Impact on portion of community away from project. d. Environmental impact on other areas. e. Can provisions be made to minimize items a through d? • Planning Commission Meet* December 7, 1978 4 November 30, 1978 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Background Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development Circulation System Study DO NOT n1te10VE On November 27, 1978, the City Council adopted a motion directing the Planning Commission to conduct a review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan as follows: a) Determine acceptability of present Circulation Plan and propose necessary amendments, b) Examine a series of design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted Circulation Element, c) Select those alternatives which appear most feasible for development, d) Determine the carrying capacity of the accepted system and alternatives e) Alternative land uses should be examined to determine if traffic generation will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system. . Further, on the basis of the findings of this Circulation System Study, the Planning Commission was directed to provide the City Council with a series of five land use and density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels, including the P-C's accepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ranging in intensity from no reductions to low density residential. Additional instructions regarding this "study were given as follows: a) The Planning Commission is to provide data in support of the .alternatives developed. b) Written data is to be solicited from the Planning Commission members, staff, developers, environmental groups, Chamber of Commerce, and other individuals or groups as may be appropriate. c) Specific data used in this study should be provided, along with the sources of that data, and should include numeric values where possible. - 1 - TO: 0 Planning Commission - 2. • i j3. Q d) Specific planning criteria should include, but not be limited to, traffic considerations, openness of vista or view, City image, cost/benefit ratio, private property rights, public rights, sewer capacity, energy requirements, implications for the airport, and social acceptance. The Planning Commission was directed to make its recommendations to the City Council by March 1, 1979. This matter was discussed initially at the joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting of October 30, 1978. The Planning Commission examined possible approaches to this type of study at the Study Session of November 9, 1978. Notices regarding this study have been sent to all community associations, other interest groups, and the owners of undeveloped land. Initial Presentation At the first session, staff will make a presentation on the existing Master Plan of Streets and Highways. This will include a description of the existing street system, and a summary of major street improve- ments which remain to be built consistent with the existing Circu- lation Element of the General Plan. A copy of the Master Plan•of Streets and Highways is attached. Also attached is a map showing the location of future street improvements called for by the Circulation Element. Schedule of Future Presentations In order to meet the March 1st deadline for submitting recommendations to the City Council, the Planning Commission may wish to adopt a schedule for the completion of tasks related to this study. A possible schedule follows: Planning Commission Meeting Date December 7, 1978 December 21, 1978 January 4, 1979 January 18, 1979 Tasks/Subjects for Discussion Description of existing Ma-ster Plan of Streets and Highways. Examination of possible design alternatives for planned road improvements. Discussion of "acceptability" criteria. Discussion of capacity of Circulation System, levels of service. Formulate recommendations on Circulation Element to be used in evaluating land use alternatives for the major vacant sites. TO: • Planning Commission - 3. . February 8, 1979 Develop land use and density alterna- tives; evaluate possible development in terms of estimate of accepted Circulation System's ability to handle traffic. February 22, 1979 Adopt final recommendations to City Council on Circulation Element and land use alternatives. Supplemental Information Attached for the Planning Commission's information is a listing of major road improvements called for by the Master Plan. Also attached is a map of the Orange County Circulation Element, which indicates the relationship of the Newport Beach Master Plan to the regional transportation system. Additional maps and displays will be available at the Study Session. Respectfully, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By /� 0� David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD/dt Attachments NEWPORT BEACH CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN OF STREETS & HIGHWAYS ® MAJOR ROAD Q INTERCHANGE SIX LAPS DIVIDED m ADOPTED PRIMARY ROAD FRAY FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROBS PRIMARY ROAD = BRIDGE MODIFIED SECONDARY ROAD FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED Mn ROUTES THAT REQUIRE FURTHER COORDINATION Io .o •ar? H hx5 C J F � c Yjy ADOPTED BY C(TY COUNCIL scale- In -feet MARCH 11,1974 __..�...___.__...�w I 5, Pc. ---I /28, %q-PER FT _I %4"Firma FT s�oae 4"PC.C. ��'•�� /.7% M/N• (TYP/CAL) (%YP/C 2.. I "I TYPE'c'cupB ��• TYPEA"C I -I :• �rn=��aL.� (TYP/CAL) MAJOR? SrrPEEr P/L /0, 84' M/A/. iu � f/4" PE2 FT. SGOP.E I MEO/ANSI /061 /AN___��I 6214 V Y STREET w 2" �--- V' MIN. lI 0• 64'M/N. l0 I MOTE ymeenr Amy kEQ!//RE SPEC/AL OES/6N. (2) MAY DE R&DUC40 TO 6Fr. he NO J-10,6MLK ? /S REpU/RED. M µ//CAPE BicYCGE T.PAiGS A.PE OE5i6N.4TEo, S/OEW/!L K W/oT!/B -WALL BE .40✓U5rE0 40 SW9VVN ON .0Q4WiM96 $TO-/Eb-L SECOMDwY SrREEr o) n LOCAL sreegr pi 4,1! 2" ?L. CUL -DE-SAC, SIM&LE RONTAGE OR LOOP SZON-T REli 9-e-76 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DRAWN AyA DATE 3-/-73 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROV 5r,4MOA470 .5ri?EE7- PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ---- __—_— R.E. N0.153� WIDTHS = DRAWI O NO, STO. -I00-4 PR06L EM AREAS AD017IONAI IMPROVEMENTS WEEDED TO COMPLETE MASTER PLAN STREET SECTIONS NEWPORT BEACH =... CIRCULATION ELEMENT h MASTER PLAN OF STREETS & HIGHWAYS ,a Q MAJOR ROAD Q INTERCHANGE SIX LANE DIVIDED 0 PRIMARY ROAD m ADOPTEDFREEWAY FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROUTES 0 PRIMARY ROAD BRIDGE MODIFIED a SECONDARY ROAD r , FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED ;; Q ROUTES THAT REOUIRE FURTHER ` COORDINATION �! r� I wfi t e r / ;: - 'fie � • . �,��1 I�� rllr I -_. _. free %- � ' ,' �,,A-; L °""'-•°fit `��, � !��� ; , - : ]I •,j{` �f. fit;`; 1 ] (�IIrIf � .Id..__I L4 •/ i �l A lIl-f 1 I 1- 'y L n •., I JI • F�e � 41 44 ,•i1Np sea '14f p l `t I. I I I111 iN 1I rl rl f �e <\ « `` Q f �JJ ,Pi 1.�/q• .. 'Iliit . ... n•:ri �' +-a-�e`� �« Eat � _ ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL scale""' - '"in feet -- MARCH 11, 1974 I N Il •I/rI '�� er p , j aR P •` DI r\` n � / I Re rlr "Al ,u.r y1 S , •TAN //f�� �t^J•F„Ir1 \ .. w. "�•" r< . ° I ` CY� � no k`V• J •.T...wy /II 77. • ii ., ;� � aomra eur r 1 SPY Ns4roer eLVP �F 8' ., a / �oe a'y` (LL •� \, J AN i "`WIN 1 n,.rb. .nn �ir, •\ � 0a0 N HILL.:. F`LEGE D ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS `. • �' i ( i ESTABLISHED CONCEPTUALL b j �A� / ALIGNMENT PROPOSED" aFj MAJOR r.�• �'•�F� •'•, , /. PRIMARY ---- SECONDARY ------- • / ' COMMUTER • THE LOCATION OF A "CONCEPTUALLY PROPOSED" ARTERIAL INDICATES THAT ORIGIN —DESTINATION L,r•^•i.�i�+•.• • P NEEDS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BASED ON • ADOPTED LAND USE PLANS. PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CENTERLINE ,'• ALIGNMENTS OF THESE ARTERIALS , •, ENVIRONMENTAL AND HIGHWAY EVALUATIONS WILL BE NECESSARY. SCENIC HIGHWAYS r PROPOSED SCENIC ROUTES TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS CONSTRUCTED ADOPTED }1 A portion of the PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY STATE- FREEWAYS MASTER PLAN OF CONSTRUCTED =--------= ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS ADOPTED PROPOSED --- o —" as amended STATE FNEEWAYS ARE NOT A PART OF THE MASTER PLAN March 29, 1978 OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS BUT ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATION, AND LOCATION PURPOSES 0 I I Zvi It I / •• '• L, • ;TxoLe?: .... war• � 9 p N,rMrM FA CITY OF NEWPORT 6EACH-CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS /v011 /976 INFORMATION SUMMARY SHEET Of /O STREET LENGTH MASTER R/BHTOFWAY ROADWAY SECT/ON ARE PLAN WIDTH 1978 /MPROYE- 1=saR/[/N6LANE� r�w� NAME AROd1 TO /N CLASS/- ADT MENTS REMARKS MILES F/CAT/G4V �5T�N6 _. A►1NED ...v'Ln�vE'�-c'b1tN. iec./ic i• irrava c6HfYE7EO LX/57/N6 i P"NNEO Y✓ ORSTA �L,WR CAMPdS uN/VERg /'OG FREEWAY 350 t 95D f NO ?WY- R77 73 DRIVE DR/✓E NO. AQVERS/TY 80NITA PoRT/oN5 NO: � DRIVE NO. CANYON D.49 •• VAR/ES 37-1y-3T -- •• IN ClrY A30NI7.4 CANYON ✓OAGN #&45 .CD. ,?T, 0--Q. wmerwelle NONE NONE —• u 770N5 No7 V CITY STVOY L�MAcAe " SqN ✓04Qu/N COAST" NOW yiL[s Ro. IfwY. NONE NONE .� AcAQTNUA? COAST hlrA A Q wESrEA?Ly C/o y ,S7r// 0.80 MAJOR /Z4' /Z¢ 2r-M-3T-6 P-B-3T-M-3T-a 33/000 NO E/ /}Ry ST. HEWPoRT sS7,T BC.VO. �Oyo ^ /00 /Z¢ 2-7--M-Z7- E8 3T-M-3T-EB 36,Oo0 n NEWMA7T DaVER " Bcvo, p,Q, /.33 •' /00 //Z P-2T-M-ZT-O 8-37-14-37-6 44ogo DOVER ORe YSIOE D,Q. /OO /26 2T--M-2T a-3T.y7-4T-B 59, 000 // ZAYS/DE dAMCaQEE Io0 /Zo - " DR, RPD, O.�S .. 7V TO 2T-M-ZT-P O-3TM-37-E9 ¢7000 y LMA400REE AqcAoL7wae �Ti¢TE' " RD, 8L VD, /•38 u 1�f8 /¢� ZT-ZM-ZT EB-3T-ZM•3T 36,ao0 /! NWY, • THVR BLVD. w C/TY OF NEWPORT aFACH-C/RCULAT/ON ELEMENT 9 MASTER. PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS /NFORMAT/ON SUMMARY SHEET? aF /o STREET NAME FROM TO LENGTH /N .t1/GES MASTER PYAA/ CLAltsl- F/CAT/GW,5?lN6 R/BHT OF WAY W/OT/l ROADWAY SECT/OA/ "IS AOT ARE /MOROYE- •ttENTS (•.6i�1 %ED REMARKS 1=AIRK/Mr LANE' T.Ti1AKlAA1�{M Ml0/AVi B=B//fFLAMEi MLA w.vtwNE•c=fA1"EANI AIfXWO �NNE� LX/5T/N6 fYANNEO ^/E{yPo,PT sacV653' /NOUST,PlAG WRY GOAST HWY 0,70 MA✓O,Z /BO /8O 2T M ZT B-3T �'f3T-EB 40/ aa0 NO rr COAST yW Y. F/NGEY AVE, 6.30 /80 2T-M-ZT-p B-3T-ti1-3T-B-P 4• 000 K AVE. Y 30 TN ST. 0. /9 {r /Z0 90 /20 P-2T-M-2T-! 2000 jwES D.V2E,e {y ECG/FF ��FF O 4,9 MA✓O.e Me /30 -ZT-M-2T-8 8-3T-M3T-6 "-3/000 NO GL/FF 0�2, COAST RWY o./9 „ /oo /Z4 /28 8-2T-M-3T 6-3T-M-�T ZSoOO rr /LVM60.PEE' CAMPWS .QQTNU,Q 454W. M4C4E7NU 54VO, T BCUFF D,e. No, O'78 474 MA✓O,e ^ /B¢ /30 /S¢ /32 I.¢V/A!E14t-40iaET Z7-M-37-o47- e-37-14-37-,B /2Y'1lVF1 -WAWr 37--M-37-047* 49-3T-M-37-6 30/4ao 39,000 N6wFb,2T yF5 aF /,P✓/NE EASTbGUF O,P. Alo, F020 RP. /.26 /, /$Z /3Z ZT-M-ZT 837--h1-3T-S 3¢000 /Vo FOleO ,PO AN ✓OAcUllN /� .P� /32 TO /42 /30 TO /¢2 /TO- B•3T-.y-3T-B /Tn2 3T-M -3T-B 4¢, a0o yE5 VOA,WIAI /41_57 W. COAST //WY• /, oy r• /32 !32 2T-M-2T -37_M-3T-6 3,RA0 N o Ll CITY OF NEWPORT 6EACH-CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER. PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS NOV /978 INFARMAT/ON SUMMARr MASTER RlsNT Oi WAY ROADWAY .SEC710AI R STREET LEN6TH AYAN W/OTH 1978 /MPROYE- iROM I TO /N .. .5f- "/°''�/`/^'° T«e/.wwue�aw:s=e/uvc: AOT /MEATS CE%EO REMARks NAME Mp FS F!C✓ITIGiYj5r� �►lt1E� MGa t.TNE'LeFI�6�CiA1.-YAKXAb _ /.' Aw/ T/N6 R'ANNEO M.aGLI.2THUR BL✓O. CAMPUS JAMEO,PEE 0:97 /00 >o /37 Te /Te2 63T-M -3T-EB /Te2 B-3T-M-3T-E6 2B/O0a NO d/.PG/I To aMPGETEO 73 199- Rp. /wj4p- /37 To /27 ✓AMBOIW.6 AOop /.97 /03 /03 ZT-M-ZT 3T-M-3T 38/LF�o _ �� ALL /N TNe ciTY of R17, /RY/NE Fv eD� QeI/N /,!7 /00 /3Z zT-M-ZT EB-3T-M-3T-Eg 3or cbO �i - S,y.N - P.POPoSEp drN cOivsT p.8/ � !OD 80 ZTM-ZT E6-3To¢T !9/0OO .. H/LGS Qp /lttiY CO[/pLET W �4V/N ✓AM$o.CEE Mfc.Qe7JH/2 /•O¢ ALO✓O.0 /�,� /¢S- /�n2 EB-3T-M-3T,E$ /A4- Ed-3T- M-3T-E6 /8 000 YES �//GLS .e0. .20. /jL✓O. AcACT//UL 6UE.b7 0.65 '� Tv To 3T-M-3T EB_ B-3T-M-3T-EB /QOOO ./ .6LV0. A✓6. /28 /Z8 26VE,C?E A✓E• 3AY6lASS O•SS �� /Z$ /LP IT,IT 6-3T-M-3T-E5 QOOYJ /VO H/GG .eO• NGL /N 6GASS EgSTE@Gi-� �i !Z8 !e8 NOTceMSTX�KTEO EB-3FM-IT-EB -- � N/NGa2 N/GG .Cp. ulNTY NEWPVRT �e. NEWPOCT cxwmeae .✓aWPUCT cE.✓TE2 LL^ A 3-C /YER✓AP /30 /.30 37--M-3T 37-M-3T 7/000 yE5 A4W,%eT LPZ• y 0.37 �� /30 /30 3T--M-3T 3T-M--3I 8/000 •/ E W CAMPUS O BE TO FV417W R�F9TEO O 4` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH —CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER. PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Nou /97,6 _ INFORMATION SUMMARY SNEET_�oF,Q 9TRE6T LENGTH MASTER PLAN R/eHT OF WAY WIDTH ROADWAY SECT/oN /97B ARE /MOROI/E- I=IK. wlC LGNE/ >iT.fAV.4{NijM MIN/AN�d=B/IIEIM'EJ ML=A1F0/.�NLANE•LiEA1EACl.It%AKA'p�0 NAME FRO/N TO /N �y/L CLAS$/- F/C,1TIaV�Sr�NG ADT MENTS c"I'LE7ED REMARKS �NNFD sX/ST/N6 PGANNEO _ K/YEf9/7v O/tY£ Ka /&VINE .14M&W�lgl ISO 4fCAa.e r/oo' l24 s43r-M 3T-E8 — No Aber~ ry �Yi4'meq �[ 20. G 41 l/e//vies/TfI ,Pwj/E NO .1"M4F45 ,QR se/sroL .fr O.Z7 Agog /24 /Zo /srBa' aar 2T--M-zT NO 9A1-B0A 7000' A*Y O /STw O.19 A*Iv eY " , 70 /04 /T- /T AW-ZT-M-Zr-' A/o ,BALBOA B%vO• /9771 J' 62457- Hwy. /42 PP/Mf4Cy ev /04 A/auB EB27 M 17�8 — mo /N!/N/N[b. Cou/y7y T� � vOA CO/}sT 11WY- 441' ST. Alle Pe/MAW 90 9D 3TM-2T 3T-M-2r 17," }DES BA4904 6cu0. 441w sr 331en ,Sr 0.46 ?e/M/�Z 65 90 2T-MP-ZT B2FM-ZT-B �l[�i4 BGUO. 33 ev 5T A* �[ O. 0% Oe%tlsiCy 90 90 ![2T-1*2T-P Y---s BALBaA & IjD- NAtFfA�Et/ PL_ A[II/?ALb 5T D, 9Jr Pe/MAAfr /OD /DO Azr-PMRZT- RZTPMRU /9.CY� YES c�NErirara+ /sue ST co�sr f IWy. BoA BcuQ a.44 p�M''tiY D /04 NE f&ZT-MST -, No uNN` & aVhW lZeA B/OLB0 4 wt l W. Sr. Bcvv m,4 ey /9 Ae�d✓.9EY O /O¢ .Ver/E F�Zr�f2T�B -- ,✓o /� SvPE2/o2 doAsr- l/wy /z," AkeP&Or o z3 �1°rTlAC uAQ+6s ,/}//L:: SOPE2lo.Q /,4v mw m7G /'/rs/A9Y /00 /00 -Z;sV47' 4rZrW-Zr--a /TieO NO �6mroea ac. 7C2Q 5o ee. • rl CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH —CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER. PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS /,/QY 197a INFORMATION SUMMARY s//EET�aF /o 57REET NAAME FROM To LENBT// /N M/LES MA57ER FYAN CLASS/- F/CAT/GN R16AFT OF WAY W/OTi/ ROADWAY SECT/oN /97S ADT ARE /MPROYE- MENTS REMARrCS �`^''�'"/''^°�"9'"E% T• rewtirj�..nvnuv: uvc: ,5ilN6 � ED LX/ST/N6 iYANNEO �aLR'aeY sr�` Z ago ,�iMAtY Go, 60 , azr-� X2.tP AZTPP2T-P Zza� YeZ oEa .t/E 410. Bc✓D. T. 26 - S AlK �y, 0.26 f.!'/Mmer, YALIA6 JAW/& R2T.M•ZT--P µ27,VVT ? ZZ� y� /eA946 At/E Be/r ST. 6PApe'E� D2 0.86 RWW1ALOY 7". /40 /G6' -- ZFZT' tB2TtitZFEB /9�6W A6 tsviN�P. e 7�ee. jRU/NE !/NNEtSI�y s9wnKo PeiwAjY /610' /oo " 2T-Al-2r-FB e�Fzr-.mtT�B ZZaw A(oz. /r E emu„ QO 4•Z5 Pe/NA6/ 9Z , r�B-2fZT i�82T-dT-E Z561� A/o !/2r//IlE 4uE f�aeLiO 20 WEfltt/ Oe. !• O /MARy //3' //3' B-ar,�Fzr- s�azr r-8 ar Yes r2,esro ers /4" jev/NE q� WZvruAr zv_ /6ru Sj- O 25 �''�'' wm 8/ To ZTr�lt Zl-B zT-Nt Zr-8 mew yEs �'A�m AVj"L /,L 0,/7ff UE W i� a67 .YWWAA'6' " cNYJiY 8-/T--/T--B Blew W G/FF /CUB a.M IWWALf/ 84' 64 2T�12T ZTM-2T /7QxJ �'ES 0N Ike a RGt /6/ /04' O�Z c w-'FE -. etw yt6 m 0 N C' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH —CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER. PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS w NOI! /97B INFORMATION SUMMARY s/rEET_/2OF /0 STREET NAME RO A26 O LENGTH /N M/LES MASTER f1AN CLA^�S/- F/GT/ON R/6H76FWAY 1V/OT/1 ROADWAY SECT/oN /97B AOT f7RE /MFROYE- ANTS r4vlwE7E0 REMAR/CS P=.4�RK/,ty LANE' 7=�A✓LA/.ILIM=MFD/AV�B=d/.YFLANE) Mc=Meciwviww�'E=EM�uncr �wrivo �5T�N (� PANNE 0 �X/ST/NG PLANNED Bison/ AUE 4MBjo 2p. c' C /9uE D•3Z Pe%�/aEy (�D /00 /Z� cz/r-/r-P c$Zr-ZHZTF 1-4W yo AkSon/ AuE�/N6e�f, 4,W,,!F4AVC HC,s wkoe D //Bro / do.vE EB-ZrZ/tZTx3' Al. iAQO 'eo ✓INBp¢EE e0. H/Y 0 Bwa D.7Z I&I w lell 8g' T /� ZT /HZl- E EE tT-N-zT-Ed da" No ADD /NQppc Alai. ma BOJ. LEUEL, r6Aap RD. gu/o N/G D.Z R2/a/aey .wv74ws �iIYOF/ `22-0 OP. SM� G � o.Zo O�N'� SD' /G4� /r /T 27MZT-f,B /.trzt No lvs� o/ heulnVE .00117/f DG ANOUGU #/V-f49. SArt/T// ,62W A. 9�N� h`/aS2. AG- E O• // PB='� '/ !O/ !O/ 3T-3T 3T-3T d� y65 A✓ Aw A�UE ✓ ovv rHur,ep. MIL pie Pot Q3Z } s-ss' 73 /T-/T 3T-E8 .��q /�o ' koc o AVE A' AI/ e ems! O. `/ �e/iwy 5As' 73' /T=/T 3T-� — A/o E!//HE �J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH —CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER. PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ,, ., INFORMATION SUMMARY si,EF7_z_aF2- 0- STREET NAME FROM TO LEN67H /N A!/LEB MASTER fYAN CLASS/- MCAT/oN R/BHT Or WqY W/OTq ROADWAY SECT/ON 1978 AOT ARE /MOROYE- ANTS caM�YETeO REittARkS �•nuKrw�er�M:/`M am`-s=i;xcu�va; nN�w„v •�.ur c.�cr.,.n•«b 15T 1N( gD �ANN I'� tX/ST/N6 q'ANNEO uEc 'v r er AvarA�b e../7 )OWAWI /O/ /O/ 37-3T .37--37" 2�GY.0 YE.t MfsuEc A` ' 8 un a a9 P�iN/Aey O /28 NavE 6-3T-ZN3T£ — No '�1/6u� A:AQT,uat AW19. , Hictt2v. a� �Q/Mf2 O /�, /� y sEcv EBZFry-Zr — q/o �fiGUEG c� env y/ems PP. FflR9 /O &iMFfZ /4?' /Q7' E8zT�12rfBEE'2r,�1�r,E8 Zao he%STd G A/°a'w // Woes"y AVVAe Aa/,raen�i dIAM5 Re /•Gt� /.ca5 PeJf1�lCy � 60� ;6 �n 7Z a;° 3>o4T 3>d 4T 3za4T 3 ¢;4KAC �as'.c� YBS YES Zc+�sr F+Kl'LM3T MBu� PAoOY E1L4/ 404 caizAna �.f/f�DEO I t CITY OF NEWPORT QEACH—CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER. PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 5/REET FROM NAME �� CQ 7e%wuE eNLi?A/ LENGTH TO /N M/GES I�f/E. SAgE /NFORMAT/ON MASTER fYAN CLASS/— P1447/ON R/sWIDrH Y W/OTH SUMMARY ROADWAY SEGT/ON /978 ADT ARE AWN7'/E- AIENTS COi W474O Now /97e SHEET-�OF �a REMARKS N j5'(111 6 i• P�N��D I=fMRK/Ny (yNFi �•Tourunrjw.=.+vouv:e=eiuEL: ML= ,ANLINE'L_EMfAffACYAKA'WB �.Y/5T/N6 PLANNED NnA QLALEA/T/IS /JuE. /6> ST. .Yc1,,L- 4,e ,fuL� SuPLSr/ae /iUE /fEdP/TpL RIP O.3Z O. /!/ - qe �' - /M,ey Ba' 15J " 80' 70 ' B2l-AFL /r-/r 2T- ZT 'A„ c4zvw MF.SR f�SPr7R� L/L'ENT/A /Hue Ar/Eur/}�pT t?cvv. O-/3 n 72 ZT.�lL 2T ZT-6/c•ZT 8, YES 2sND T LuiN vSTlN AvE. D.ZS ae¢Y yo n� 7a. 8a P/T-/r-.o azT2T-P saw A/o G'A/�1PUS Ale. CAryOUS Flo sT. BP1S7bG ST. MYAM4L' Burg IMF /�1eNgQisr/ Bu/O. ✓AHRW$' Oe 0.95 O avgaaY a9eY BO 825 Bo 9� 8o 2T ML ZT zrML_zrE f�6/T-/TRB zoet� MAY IVAw uVG.e4"41W 7 �'T-/L ZT--E 14Ct27 /Es /zB/T-/T-RB 7,Qm No lotR c" .01 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH —CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS A&W /97A INFORMATION SUMMARY •-w--4T L7& STREET AC4ME FROM TO LENGTH /N M/GES MASTER Fy,AN CLASS/- F/G1T/CiN5TIN6 R/BHTpFWAY W/oTN ROADWAY .SECT/ON /978 AOT ARE 1AWayE- .NENTs Cbt/RETED REMARKS "M'�K�'"a �'9'"E� T•T'uKunrfw� wrrciw.v:s=eilrFuvc: MG- ANLAME•LeLMi.ILfACYMfKMO �NNED LX/ST/N6 FYr�NNEO /�2Y/NE 1012 16 7W sr. /37A' sr. �rmY 82 8Z �B27 ZT-� itA-7r-2r-/o sab YF-5 EiS25T$LUF� !le. ✓AHBQPf� �,S6,ENR ✓/M! P.O.r 6 /.4¢ mw 8¢ BQ BZT-I�IL' ZT-B B-Zr-/uG•ZT-8 7,g i�ES 447'BLUFF L1E Ailk-AmeDIiZ BL f/D Y O B¢ ' Norl- B-Zr-A�-Zr-d /Vo AWS/RE Lit. GTartST fJD,� / Jat L7� �Y 82T 86 B �. B6 B-ZTML-2l P B-ZFML Zl P /�Gt� YES J,t�raa�E Po °` 0�8 Hoer s9' 94' zr L-zr� EZryvG�r� a� Yes A//>� ski AuE 0.3! �°A&/ � 70 , 70 P-/T-ITp sA�E 4� YES M�4.2GtiPa /?uE $ l/J ,4&5 .ABC/ =Ogg g 79 MA2S' �' 8.4 B�Ty1lL�l B ger- ZTa4 /a LF�7 YES I 0 r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH —CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER. PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS oa /NFORMAT/ON SUMMARY SHEETIQOFIQ STREET NAME FROM TO LENGTH /N M/GES MASTER PLAN F/c�7joNt5ttN6 RIBHT OF WAY WIDTH ROADWAY SECT/ON /978 ADT /1RE /MPROYh- MENTS CbHfYt7E0 REdL4RK5 �v�wn�fiM :B=BI/fEIM'Ei Mc=wieoiwK<w.vE<=EMencE.tr✓na'rcve �NNE� sz/ IA/ a oPLANNED say CeAz H/LG .eD. SAAI MAfpuGL,Q sAw p E,2T-zT-E' ghe80A &kv• ST. Blt/l% �'g7 dL1dEy O ZT-zr-P 92iVD Sr. AN4,60A BLyo. ew't"er Burl• D (4 SEe*bNAc 8a' 80 ' 'zT>?r-P Pzr-zr-P �cra� iEs 32ND/T- �� �4Do DZ/ K°oNR9�' 960' c3¢/ P-IT—IT--P P-ZT--or-P -4f&V No vA L/Od ~�� 320p Q25 3£�Wya 76 7s A". O2T -ZT P Pz'T M ZT-P P Lr-LT-P P 27y11 ZT-P /6• az Ya-< I* A-. 13.30 COY OF NEWPORT BE*H ROLI COUNCILMEN lip vCC,ya� O tiG2i CALLtop � November 27, 1978 MINUTES INDEX F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. (District ) or Ryckoff'a appointment of a Com Dev member to the Commun - e�lo_pment Citizens CAC Advisory Committee to fill the—mexp rimed_ term of (2127) Motion x William H. Morris ending December 31, 1978-wa All Ayes postponed to December 20, 1978. 2. A report was presented from the Community General Plan Development Department regarding Planning_Commis- (673) sion review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion tc direct the Planning Commission to take the following actions with respect to_traffic_considerations: a) Determine acceptability of present Circulation Plan and propose necessary amendments, b) Examine a series of design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted Circulation Element, c) Select those alternatives which appear most feasible for development, d) Determine the carrying capacity of the accepted system and alternatives, e) Alternative land uses should be examined to determine if traffic generation will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system; i and to further direct the Planning Commission to provide the Council with a series of five density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels,_ including P-C's excepted from the Traff`i-cc Phasing Ordinance, se follows: 1. No reductions 2. To be determined by Planning Commission 3. To be determined by Planning Commission I 4. To be determined by Planning Commission 5. Low density residential and to provide alternative supporting data, both I positive and negative, with each alternative; to solicit'written data from Commissioners, staff, developers, environmental groups, Chamber of Commerce, and other individuals or groups as may be appropriate; to provide specific data along with the sources of that data; and to include number values where possible; with specific criteria to include;_ but not be limitedfo, Volume 32 - Page 298 OTY OF NEWPORT AACH COUNCILMEN ROLL CAL\ November 27. 1978 MINUTES [Iffo All Ayes traffic considerations, _openness of vista or view,__ "it image, cost/ benefit ratio to City, private property rights, public rights,_ sewer caoacitya enemy regnirements,_ impiicatione for airport,_and social ecceptiiiii� and to_make its recommendations of an alternative to Council bZ_March 1,, ]979. Mayor Pro Tem Williams stated for the record that the intent of the motion was to cover those undevelope_ Darts s_witicfi`tlie Couric"il ef3i1 had opportunity to work with ingar red to allowable denaifies: T—__ __ _ ___. _ P _ - _ — __ _ A vote -was. taken on Mayor Pro_Tem,_W_i_lliams' motion, which motion carried. 3. A report was presented from the Public Works Energy Department regarding proposed re -institution of Conservation street lighting energy conservation program in XI817) conjunction with conversion of existing systems. f Motion x The staff was directed to re -institute the i f All Ayes street lighting energy conservation program. /raffic 4. A report dated November 13, 1978 was presented from the Public Works Department regarding speed i /Regulations bumps. (132F) �� Rudy Baron addressed the Council and asked i'hat re -affirmation of the City's present pos ion on speed bumps be withheld. James Orstad addressed the Council d asked that the alley between Holmwood d Catalina be excepted from the City's posi on regarding speed bumps. Motion x Mr. Orstad was granted/tvo additional minutes All Ayes for his presentation./ Motion x The problem was referred to the Traffic Affairs All Ayes Committee for xdport back with more details. 5. A propose4,�6rdinance, being, Bluff Development ANfORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regulations ='ADDING SECTION 20.51.080 TO THE NEWPORT (3061) f BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT OF BLUFF SITES" (RELATING TO PLANNED < COMMUNITIES), Planning Commission Amendment No. 515, initiated by the City of Newport Beach, was presented with a report from the Community Development Depart- ment. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to postpone the ordinance to January 22, 1979. I Volume 32 - Page 299 City Council Meeting November 27, 1978 Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 21, 1978 TO: City Council F-2 FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Planning Commission Review of Circulation Element of General Plan At the Study Session of November 13, 1978, the City Council dis- cussed my verbal report regarding the plans of the Planning Commis- sion to review and either amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan'and/or adopt implementation design alternatives for the Circulation Element. During that discussion it was proposed.that the Council give the Planning Commission more specific direction with regard to the criteria to be used in the' selection of alternative land uses. Such alternative land uses would be considered in relationship to the selection of appropriate road and intersection designs. A motion giving direction to the Planning Commission was prepared for consideration at the regular meeting of November 13, 1978. However, during the regular meeting, it was determined that more time would be needed for consideration of the motion. Therefore, a copy of the motion is attached, and the Council may either approve it as written or modify as desired. Respectfully,submitted, DEP3AJENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V.;. OGAN irector RVH/kk Attachment MOTION REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING DENSITY REDUCTION STUDY Move to request the Planning Commission to provide the Council with a series of five density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels, including vested, but unbuilt P-C's, as follows: 1 - No reductions 2 - To be determined by Planning Commission 3 - To be determined by Planning Commission 4 - To be determined by Planning Commission 5 - Low density residential Provide with each alternative supporting data, both positive and negative. Solicit written data from Commissioners, staff, developers, environmental groups, Chamber of Commerce, and other individuals or groups as may be appropriate. Provide specific data along with the sources of that data. Include number values where possible. Specific criteria may include, but not be limited to, traffic consid- ehations, openness of vista or view, City image, cost/benefit ratio to City, private property rights, public rights, sewer capacity, energy requirements, implications for airport, and social acceptance. With respect to traffic considerations: a) Determine acceptability of present Circulation Plan and propose necessary amendments. b) Examine a series of design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted Circulation Element. c) Select those alternatives which'appear most feasible for development. d) Determine the carrying capacity of the accepted system and alternatives. ey Alternative land uses should be examined to determine if traffic generation will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system. After obtaining this information, Commission is to make its recommen- dation of an alternative to Council by February 1, 1979. 1 z. cv ' K EIVED C nra;)L m P Dc rloome//•Y�Q NO ' 8 1978a- `J_ey/^''y_�/� 4EWP R 'PEACH, co �( i..". ^Ct {•i .tom. tx f,: f7ez Cigcc:o(' J " j� Gouncilmen 6-,IA 6LA-Q- �� 0 Frm the Office of City Clerk TODAY'S MAIL Date: It- A-Iq Attn: Cey,.O r L�(, 0 0. ALLAN BEEK Honorable Mayor and City Council: November 27, 1978 Exhibited below is a table of traffic generation, land value., and their ratio for several different land uses and parcels. The traffic generation figures are based on the attached memorandum from Bill Darnell to Fred Talarico of December 61 1977. The land value figures are based on the attached appraiser's report dated November 14, 1978. This is the table I promised you when asking you to continue Planning Commission Amendment No. 514 from Novem- ber 13 to November 27. Average Land Daily Value Value Daily Value Trips per per Trips (Total) per Acre Trip (Total) Acre Corporate Plaza 100 of allowable 5335b 17,1�jj.83,006 124.E 406,581 3264 70%� reduction 1607 42 0!},000 37.4 111, 21 2989 5 dwellings/acre 21 0 114 691, 000 50.0 ;11-:L 1 6833 3 dwellings/acre 15g8 11,228,000 36.o 2 1,111 7253 IWIOXII of allowable 7376 3.0,733,000 388.2 564,89 1458 70% reduction 2209 4.,702,000 116.3 21}7,47 2129 5 dwellings/acre 950 3P� 5:000 50.0 1 1,31 362 3 dwellings/acre 84 2,bb3,,3,000 36.o 138,579.' 3849 Koll 1M�' of allowable 14 362 25,158, 0 2gq3.1 5133,434 1752 70rreduction 950 09 ll,077,414 87.9 22b2070 2571 5 dwellings/acre 7,88 ,000 50.0 160,939 3219- 3 dwellings/acre 1764 6,027,000 36.o 123,000 •3417 Aeronutronic 0 of allowable 5182 3,444,886 5o.3 33,445 665 70% reduction 1555 (-3,329,000) 15.1 (-32,320) (-2140) 5 dwellings/acre 5150 23,558,000 50.0 228,718 4574 3 dwellings/acre 37o8 18,739,000 36.0 181,932 5484 Summary of some supporting data: 13 daily trips per 1000 square feet of office space 10 daily trips per dwelling if 5 per acre 12 daily trips per dwelling if 3 per acre Allowed With 70% Acres Floor area Sq. feet reduction ratio Corporate Plaza 412,000 123,600 43 22% Emkay 5662423 1692927 19 68% Koll 1,104..775 331,1�32 49 52% Aeronutronic 39$$,600 119,580 103 9% FROM: Trail Engineer • SUBJECT: TRIP GENERATION RATES Per your request we have developed trip generation rates for the various categories on the attached list. The ADT rates should be good.' In some areas the peak hour rates may change }when we finalize our Transportation Model. .. A-to--01T � � DtA5� AcG Sq•Ff' PE11. -'R?�P�t� , .... :cr' ltSE E op i:A.1Z. iRoo,rs oR.` 1 FPLTOR� 7FZIP5 (F RbR1Tn s -- P FnC(tx- P � Fri tinps.tteR: l utvlTs to M 10 10 7. i5 � I SE D—. --- �.-�..--: �:�': 1 • ! i 3?7.":'`r yi!ia-Yn-.-�� ��.?:i'li,�n:.;t�i �•.�Say�^i �i.• �,n:'�.'..:=': .. '. 'ti.^:C :1�,.: .. ..:r-t'i r_._:r..:. _ �:..a� ..s a-..:?. _ .. _`':?� .�:.••. :': - . .•._. �..,:. :..:n y ••'•,.i:.`i.t ��+•:2::'7 y(' •n' __� i..�••Vw _Y Kt QFFtG ."�:..fre-'..._r,•'.L. ;iF=• ..:''7+�...(... .� :. �.o:::.�...-�.,+.-•�•:—.-ri c:;_: ;•jS•;i: ;.-j:sf. .twi.•�'. t_;:. ,y It 45,0 � � t. s •. ,�•^%a'^'�,,_'�:. •Y,i. � :.:ram _ __ :.` _ .ram -- —�- a •:r•$; F•'V'•';.�� — -sue:--- ;i.::_..::_..� .,�v_ ... ...: 'i '.'•! .:--- ::—=— ,•.:::- •:- =�2•;-: . •'Z� -- ..•r:- ... ..; •�i -•w --- , 'V MLI .Q I[A• I ^•'•P� :T .:.t}.=:+..:ld 7,'�a': __5 ::.4:.A•• •�✓ Ln:•_ K•::y^•' ..__i(L ti::• 3': .•t.. _ +.:V::.:rl•`:• ..•, M.•,,,.I�:O M �.: �.,_. • ` !-...�r.n_ ��t_9__2S [ { � t�.7�•E REGIor7A4.. _ ..�^-`�'�?�' �..'�,�•- ----• o. LS � t { 1.�0 Nay �•�'-"' — f�_7.(__—. Q �--- 2. � --- —= 2-� t—.__•.. I -3- S- }I ....... _ _... . _.._..... t logo m OCCAS1 AL.) ?.A.-I:N P.Aro -rRIP5 ppr Ocr FAcmR I Fhcm IImps FACED?. TRIPS Fpt=& usS 1 F-AsP,. ... ...... . .4. . . . ............ AIZA ........ 0.4 z Vol 1 11,611 IL 7-4 21 =srurm .3.0 MODS tocj!;s 11 -1 Lim corns 1..1Ob FrASr7too 1-1) q7-A ?o Dear Mr. Beek: At your request, we have prepared a very -preliminary -study which measures the potential loss in value due to density reductions and/or down zoning to residential usage. The areas included are Corporate Plaza, Newport Place, Koll Center Newport and Aeronutronic Ford. MARKET VALUE DEFINITION: The term "market value" as used in this report is defined as being: "The highest price in terms of money which a property' will bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assum- ing the price is not affected by undue stimulus." RESIDUAL ANALYSES: The following residual analyses reflect the value of the four sites with current allowable square footages, with a 70% reduction in density and with residential uses at three and five units per acre. Mr. Allan Beek November 1-4, 1978 Page 2 CORPORATE PLAZA: Vacant Area - 43 Acres Additional Allowable Square Footage - 412,000 Square Feet - office Uses 100% 70% Item Description Allowable Sq.Ft. Reduction Estimated Net Rentable Area 368,740 Sq.Ft. 110,622 Sq.Ft. Estimated Annual Gross Potential Revenues @ $16.50/Sq.Ft. $•610841210 @ $18.00/Sq.Ft.* $ 1,991,196 Less Vacancy & Collection Loss @ 5% . . . . . . . . 304,210 99,560 EFFECTIVE GROSS REVENUE . . . . $ 5,780,000 $ 1,891,636 Less Estimated Operating Expenses @ $3.54/Sq.Ft. 1,307,175 @ $3.89/Sq.Ft.** 430,862 NET OPERATING INCOME BEFORE DEPRECIATION & DEBT SERVICE. $ 4,472,825 $ 11460,774 CAPITALIZATION @ 9% CAPITAL VALUE ESTIMATE . . . . $49,698,056 $16,230,822 Less Estimated Building Cost . . 22,774,500 6,832,612 Less Common Area Cost . . . . . 3,746,160 3,746,160 RESIDUAL VALUE TO LAND AND PROFIT . . . . . . . $23,177,396 $ 5,652,050 Less Profit Margin . . . . . . . .85 .85- RESIDUAL VALUE OF LAND . . . . . $191700,000 $ 4,804,000 Discounted for Absorption One Year @ 12% . . . . . . . . 8874 -0- 'DISCOUNTED LAND VALUE . . . . . $17,483,000 $ 4,804,000 SAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.33/Sq.Ft. $2.56/Sq.Ft. * Less density and more common area would cause rents to increase slightly. ** Due to increased common area maintenance. Mr. Allan Beek November 14; 1978 Page 3 CORPORATE PLAZA (Continued): Residential Uses Item Description 3 D.U./Acre 5 D.U./Acre Total Lots . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Lots 215 Lots - Avg. Lot Size (After Interior Street Deductions) .*. . . . . 12;342 Sq.Ft. 7,405 Sq.Ft. 'Avg. Retail Lot Value Per Lot $ 120,000 $ 100,000 Less Sales Expense, Financing Profit & Overhead . . . . . . .77 .77 UNDISCOUNTED LOT VALUE . . . . . $ 92,400 $ 77,000 Discount for Absorption: 6 Months @ 12% . . . . . . . .942 12 Months @ 12% . . . . . . . :8874 DISCOUNTED LOT VALUE . . . . . . $ 87,041 $ 68,330 Times Number of Lots ., . . . . 129 215 ROUNDED . . . . . . . . . . . . $11,228,000 $14,691,000 .SAY . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.99/Sq.Ft. $7.84/Sq.Ft. Mr. Allan Beek • • November 14, 1978 Page 4 NEWPORT PLACE: Vacant Area - 19 Acres Additional Allowable Square Footage - 566,423 Square Feet Office Uses 100% 70% Item Description Allowable Sq.Ft. Reduction Estimated Net Rentable Area 506,949 Sq.Ft. 152,085 Sq.Ft. Estimated Annual Gross Potential Revenues @ $12.60/Sq.Ft. . . $ 6,387,557 @ $13.85/Sq.Ft.* . . $ 2,106,377 Less Vacancy & Collection Loss @ 5% . . . . . . . . . . 319,378 105,319 EFFECTIVE GROSS REVENUE . . . . $ 6,068,179 $ 2,001,058 Less Estimated Operating Expenses @ $3.26/Sq.Ft. 1,652,634 @ $3.61/Sq.Ft.** . . 549,021 NET OPERATING INCOME BEFORE DEPRECIATION & DEBT SERVICE. $ 4,415,545 $ 1,452,037 PAPITALIZATION @ 9% CAPITAL VALUE ESTIMATE . . . . $491061,6ll $16,133,744 .Less Estimated Building Cost . . 29,820,200 8,946,200 Less.Common Area Cost . . . . . 41138,200*** 1,655,280 RESIDUAL VALUE TO LAND AND PROFIT . . . . $15,103,211 $ 51532,264 Less Profit Margin . . . . . . . .85 .85 RESIDUAL VALUE OF LAND . . . . . $12,838,000 $ 4,702,000 Discount for Absorption 18 Months @ 12% . . . . . . . .8360 -0- DISCOUNTED LAND VALUE . . . . . $10,733,000 $ 4,702,000 SAY . . . . . . . . . . . $12.97/Sq.Ft. $5.68/Sq.Ft. * Less density and more common area would cause rents to increase slightly. ** Due to increased common area maintenance. *** Includes parking structure. Mr. Allan Beek NEWPORT PLACE (Continued) : Residential Uses November 14, 1978 Page 5 Item Description 3 D.U./Acre 5 D.U./Acre Total Lots . . . . . . . . . . . 57:.Lnts 95 Lots Avg. Lot Size (After Interior Street Deductions) 12,342 Sq.Ft. 71405 Sq.Ft. Avg. Retail Lot Value Per Lot $ 60,000 $ 50,000 Less Sales Expenses, Financing, Profit & Overhead . . . . . '. -.77 .77 UNDISCOUNTED LOT VALUE . . . . . $ 46,200 $ 38,500 Discount for Absorption: 6 Months @ 12% . . . . . . . -0- .942 DISCOUNTED LOT VALUE . . . . . . $ 46,200 $ 36,267 Times Number of Lots . . . . . 57 95 ROUNDED . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,633,000 $3,445,000 SAY . . . . . . . . . . . $3.18/Sq.Ft. $4.16/Sq.Ft. Mr. Allan Beek November 14, 1978 Page 6 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT: Vacant Area - 49 Acres Additional Allowable Square Footage - 1,104,775 Square Feet Office Uses Item Description Estimated Net Rentable Area Estimated Annual Gross Potential Revenues @ $14.50/Sq.Ft. @ $16.00/Sq.Ft.* Less Vacancy & Collection Loss @ 5% . . . . . . . . . . EFFECTIVE GROSS REVENUE Less Estimated Operating Expenses @ $3.39/Sq.Ft. @ $3.89/Sq.Ft.** NET OPERATING INCOME BEFORE DEPRECIATION & DEBT SERVICE. . CrAPITALIZATION @ 9% CAPITAL VALUE ESTIMATE . . . . -Less Estimated Building Cost . . Less Common Area Cost . . . . . RESIDUAL VALUE TO LAND AND PROFIT . . . . . . . Less Profit Margin . . . . . . . RESIDUAL VALUE OF LAND . . . . . Discounted for Absorption 3 Years @ 12% . . . . . . . . 1 Year @ 12% . . . . . . . . DISCOUNTED LAND VALUE . . . . . SAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100% 70% Allowable Sq.Ft. Reduction. 988,774 Sq.Ft. 296,632 Sq.Ft. $ 14,337,223 $ 4,746,112 716,861 237,306 $ 13,620,362 $ 4,508,806 3,351,944 i 1,153,898 $ 10,268,418 $ 31354,908 $114,093,533 $37,276,756 611071,36.0 18,321,450 10,672,200*** 4,268,880 $ 42,349,973 $14,686,426 .85 .85 $ 35,997,000 $12,483,000 .6989 .8874 $ 25,158,303 $11,077,414 $11.79/Sq.Ft. $5.19/Sq.Ft. * Less density and more common area would cause rents to increase slightly. ** Due to increased common area maintenance. *** Includes parking structures. Mr.'Allan Beek November 14, 1978 Page 7 KOLL CENTER NEWPORT (Continued): Residential Uses Item Description - 3 D.U./Acre 5 D.U./Acre Total Lots . . . . . . . . 147 Lots 245 Lots Avg. Lot Size (After Interior Street Deductions) . . . . . . 12,342 Sq.Vt. 71405 Sq.Ft. Avg. Retail Lot Value Per Lot. $ 60,000 $ 50,000 Less Sales Expenses, Financing, Profit & Overhead . . . . . . .77 .77 UNDISCOUNTED LOT VALUE . . . . . $ 46,200 $ 38,500 Discount for Absorption: 12 Months @ 12% . . . . . . . .8874 18 Months @ 12% . . . . . . . .8360 DISCOUNTED LOT VALUE . . . . . . $ 40,998 $ 32,186 Times -Number of Lots ., . . . . 147 245 ROUNDED . . . . . . . . . . . . $6,027,000 $7,886,000 .SAY . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.82/Sq.Ft. $3.69/Sq.Ft. • 1J Mr. Allan Beek November 14, 1978 Page 8 AERONUTRONIC FORD: Vacant Area _ 103 Acres Additional Allowable Square Footage - 398,600 Square Feet Office Uses 100% 70% Item Description Allowable Sq.Ft. Reduction Estimated Net Rentable Area 356,747 Sq.Ft. 107,024 Sq.Ft. Estimated Annual Gross Potential Revenues @ $12.60/Sq.Ft. . . $ 41495,012 @ $13.85/Sq.Ft.* • . $ 1,482,282 Less Vacancy & Collection Loss @ 5% . . . . . . . . . . 224,751 74,114- EFFECTIVE GROSS REVENUE . . . . $ 41270,261 $ 11408,168 Less Estimated Operating Expenses @ $3.26/Sq.Ft. 11162,995 @ $3.61/Sq.Ft.** . . 386,357 NET OPERATING INCOME BEFORE DEPRECIATION & DEBT SERVICE. $ 31107,266 $ 11021,811 .CAPITALIZATION @ 9% CAPITAL VALUE ESTIMATE ROUNDED $34,525,000 $11,353,000 _Less Estimated Building Cost 20,985,100 6,295,550 Less Common Area Cost . . . . . 8,973,,360 81973,360 RESIDUAL VALUE TO LAND AND PROFIT . . . . . . . $ 4,566,540 ($ 31915,910) Less Profit Margin . . . . . . .85 .85 RESIDUAL VALUE OF LAND . . . . . $ 31882,000 $ 31329,000 Discount for Absorption One Year @ 12% . . . . . . .8874 -0- DISCOUNTED LAND VALUE . . . . . $ 3,444,886 ($ 3,329,000) -SAY $0.77/Sq.Ft. ($0.74/Sq.Ft.) * Less density and more common area would cause rents to increase slightly. ** Due to increased common area maintenance. e Mr. Allan Beek November 14, 1978 Page 9 AERONUTRONIC FORD: (Continued): Residential Uses Item Description - 3 D.U./Acre 5 D.U./Acre Total Lots - 309 Lots 515 Lots Avg. Lot Size (After Interior Street Deductions) . . . . . . 12,342 Sq.Ft. 7,405 Sq.Ft. Avg. Retail Lot Value Per Lot. $ 100,000 $ 85,000 Less Sales Expense, Financing, . Profit & Overhead . . . . . . .77 .77 UNDISCOUNTED LOT VALUE . . . . . $ 771-000 $ 65,450 Discount for Absorption: 2 Years @ 12% . . . . . . . . .7876 3 Years @ 12% . . . . . . . . .6989 DISCOUNTED LOT VALUE . . . . . . $ 60,645 $ 45,743 Times Number of Lots . . . . . 309 515 ROUNDED . . . . . . . . . . . . $18,739,000 $23,558,000 _SAY . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.18/Sq.Ft. $5.25/Sq.Ft. C Mr. Allan Beek November 14, 1978 Page 10 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY VALUES: Corporate Plaza 100% Allowable Office Area . . . . . . $ 9.33/Sq.Ft. 70% Reduction of Allowable Area . . . $ 2.56/Sq.Ft. Residential 3 D.U./Acre . . . . . $ 5.99/Sq.Ft. Residential 5 D.U./Acre . . . . . . $ 7.84/Sq.Ft. Newport Place 100% Allowable Office Area . . . . . . $12.97/Sq.Ft. 70% Reduction of Allowable Area . . . $ 5.68/Sq.Ft. Residential 3 D.U./Acre . . . . . . . $ 3.18/Sq.Ft. Residential 5 D.U./Acre $ 4.16/Sq.Ft. Koll Center 100% Allowa 70% Reduct Residential Residential Newport ale Office Area . . . . . . $11.79/Sq.Ft. Lon of Allowable Area . . . $ 5.85/Sq.Ft. 3 D.U./Acre . . . . . . . $ 2.82/Sq.Ft. 5 D.U./Acre . . . . . . . $ 3.69/Sq.Ft. Aeronutronic Ford 100% Allowable Office Area . . . . . $ 0.77/Sq.Ft. 70% Reduction of Allowable Area . . . ($0.74/Sq.Ft.) Residential 3 D.U./Acre . . . . . . . $ 4.18/Sq.Ft. Residential 5 D.U./Acre . . . . . . . $ 5.25/Sq.Ft. Mr. Allan Beek LIMITING CONDITIONS: November 14, 1978 Page 11 This report is made expressly subject to the conditions -and stipula- tions following: 1) No responsibility is assumed by are legal in nature. .s. 2) No opinion of title is rendered are appraised as though free of the title marketable. us for matters which and the properties all encumbrances and 3) The appraisal covers the properties described only. 4) No survey of the boundaries of the properties have been,made. All areas and dimensions furnished are assumed to be correct. 5) Sources of information are believed to be correct and, where feasible, have been verified. 6) By reason of this appraisal we are not required to give testimony or to be in attendance in court or at any governmental or other hearing with reference to the properties without prior arrangements having been made relative to such additional employment. 7) The value rendered reflects a fee simple estate. 8) That the soils are sound and capable of supporting the proposed improvements without extraordinary foundation costs." 9) Values for the residential lots do not reflect the additional -costs of engineering and lot construction. The values assume completion of adjacent exterior streets and all utilities being available with suf- ficient capacity. 10) Estimated retail lot values and absorption periods are based on general knowledge of the area, no specific analysis of these variable's was undertaken. 11) That the 70% reduction of allowable office space is a permanent reduction with regard to that portion of the preliminary valuation. Mr. Allan Beek • • November 14, 1978 Page 12 LIMITING CONDITIONS (Continued): 12) Rent levels, operating expenses, building cost esti- mates and common area cost estimates are based on general knowledge of the area and no specific analysis of these variabl.es.was undertaken. . 1 13) Disclosure of .the contents of this appraisal report is governed by the By -Laws and Regulations of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraisers or the firm with which they are con- nected, or any reference to the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or to the M.A.I. or R.M. design ation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communica- tion without the prior written consent and approval of the authors. Mr. Allan Beek November 14, 1978 Page 13 CERTIFICATION: The undersigned appraisers certify that they are familiar with'the properties described herein, consisting of Corporate Plaza, Newport Place, Koll Center Newport, and Aeronutronic Ford, Newport Beach, California; that they have no past, present or prospective, direct or indirect interest in the said properties; nor personal interest or bias toward the parties,involved; that their employment in this consultation is not in any manner contingent upon returning prelimin- ary appraisal findings in any specified or implied amount or other- wise contingent upon anything other'than the delivery of this re- port; that, to the best of"their knowledge and belief, all of the statements of fact contained in this appraisal letter, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and accurate, subject to the Limiting Conditions herein set forth; that no one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opinions concerning real estate that are set forth in this consultation; and that this appraisal has been made in conformity with and is subject to the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National Association of Realtors. 0 13.30 MINUTES INDEX (b) A letter from Joan Christensen expressing appreciation for the recent art exhibit and music on the City Hall lawn. (Attached) (1115) (c) A letter from Mr. and Mrs. E. P. Benson opposing the Blufftop Street Dedication Initiative on the November ballot. (Attached) (2831) (d) A copy of a letter to the Orange County Criminal Justice Council from Bill Vardoulis, Mayor of the City of Irvine, regarding their position on the overall issue of LEAA funds local governments. (Attached) (889) (a) A let r from the Southern California Edison Company dvising that the division of the property s wn on the Final Parcel Map No. 9209 (Resub , located between Von Karman and MacArthur s therly of Campus) will not reasonably interfe a with the free and complete exercise o ny easements held by Southern California Ed n Company. (Attached) (3116) (f) A copy of a letter to the City raffic Engineer from the Corona del Mar amber of Commerce regarding offstreet parkin lots and pedestrian circulation and requesting meet with their committee to consider the pro em. (Attached) (960) (g) A letter from G: A. Riesen regarding the West Newport noxious gas odor. (Attached) (h) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (1 (i) A letter together with a clipping from J. Allan Bentley concerning traffic problems in (1154) blot, the ty. ttac e V Q ) A letter from Duane Winters thanking Council for their support during his year as President of the League of California Cities. (2 ) (Attached) (k) A letter from the Orange County Transport tion Commission Citizens Advisory Comma ee regarding meetings to receive citiz input on transportation problems with the County. (960) (Attached) (1) A Notice of Hearing the Board of Super- visors of Orange unty, California for a proposed anne ion of the City of Costa Mesa designated acific-Canyon Island Annexation, located the north side of Victoria Street, and st and west of Pacific Avenue. (20) (m) xcerpt from the Minutes of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County instructing the r Volume 32 - Page 288 1@ITY OF NEWPORT RACH W 2�NRoll_ C November 13, 1978 MINUTES INDEX .County Counsel to file Petitions to Intervene with the Civil Aeronautics Board in the California -Arizona, California -Seattle, and California -Salt Lake City Low -Fare Route Applications, in opposition to the granting of any additional turbojet flights or additional jet noise at Orange County Airport. (195) (Attached) (n) A position statement on Proposition 6 from the Orange County Human Relations Commission. (20) (Attached) (o) A letter to Mayor Ryckoff from the State Department of Transportation regarding the Route 55 Freeway, and stating that Newport Beach will be contacted in the near Future regarding direct participation in the Environ- mental study of the corridor. (Attached) (282) (p) Agenda of the Board of Supervisors meetings of October 24, 25, 31, November 1, 7 and 8, (20) 78. (q) A tter from the Orange County Housing Aut city outlining their three long range goals and enclosing a copy of their Annual Report (Attached) (Copy of Annual Report on (1272) file in City Clerk's office) 5. The following laims for damages were denied and Claims the City Clerk' referral to the insurance carrier was confirmed: (a) Claim of Judy arty for property damage to Barry her home at 25 inda Isle when it Was flooded (3097) by water and se ge allegedly caused by a problem in the Ci y sewer line. (b) Claim of Diane E. C rpenter for personal Carpenter injuries when she wa hit by a car driven by (3098) Norman Cook on July 1978, allegedly due to Faulty maintenance, esign, construction and lack of proper warn g on Pacific Coast Highway near the interse ion with Orchid Avenue. (c) Claim of Neil Andrew Clarke, a minor by and Clarke through his guardian, Wilbert Clarke, for (3099) personal injuries sustained on July 14, 1978 when he was struck in the face the knee of Michael Page who was chasing a f sbee. The Clarke's are claiming negligence the part of the lifeguard on duty who failekto prevent Michael Page from throwing t e frisbee. (d) Claim of Jay Handy Howell for false arr st, Howell assault, battery and false imprisonment s (3100) well as trespass of personal property which caused emotional distress on July 31, 1978 when he was allegedly returning a wallet to its owner and was taken into custody. Volume 32 - Page 289 4p N3 C] • --:;; t Cure Traffic` Pro le , There's the view, now being shared around the rest of the county, that Newport Beach officials —especially the _,.....,,a rinn'}. really want to doranythinir about U46HR• imulated earlier this month when council members voted by their usual5-2 margin. to shelve"plans' •for a, road tax which would enable the city to build the balance of its roadway masterplan within'the next five or six years t On record, the plan; has been put'off until after the first of the, year because council members are more ih- terested in acting on a longstanding. revision in the general plan and completing several moretraffic studies. In reality, the plan was put off because councilmen who cast the five votes against tt ""* plain 4Qn't want t �e - who voted for problemsnavecome o is. The Newport Beach City Council(One and All) WE COULD''NT SAY IT BETTER:'." YOUR "STICK YOUR HEAD -IN THE SANDtr PHILpSOPHY WILL NEVER iN,`- PROVE THE'TRAFFIC GONDITbONS IN NEWPORT BEACH i THE ONLY ACTION THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY )ate�i/1 0uwIL CAN COME UP WITH IS TO HAVE MORE 21N,,S sE?11 . FFIC STUDYS MADE,. VOTE DOWN MEASURES 17 Mayor THAT WOULD I14PROVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND F r.lorwger BLAME THEIR IN -ACTION ON THE TRAFFIC CO- i, A.tornloy dPr1TER DELAYS. x ? w Direction C: -noev ilveetor w pater IT SEEMS THAT EVERYBODY EXCEPT THE SMEMBERS rCOUNCIL REALIZE THAT THE TRAFFIC un. HE GOING FROM BAD TO WORSE::' ,f cilY CLERX OC r 3 j 1973 ® DISGUSTED NEWPORT GI�TIIZEN N&IpO/RT SFACA @INl' C16Y OF NEWPORT BE10CH COUNCILMEN MINUTES `P�'�� �3 ROLL CALLS,d' November k9', 1978 INDEX (c) To staff for inclusion in ongoing study, a SCAG report from the Environmental Quality (447) Citizens Advisory Committee regarding Draft SCAG-78 "Growth Forecast Policy Summary" dated August 1978. (Attached) (d)' Removed from the Consent Calendar. To staff for reply, a letter frpm the NIWA "208" vironmental Quality Citizens Advisory (355) Co ttee regarding the NIWA 208 Process, and reques g the City Council adopt a siltation control o trance. (Attached with a copy of their resolution) (f) To staff for reply, letter from Coy Atkins Big Canyon regarding the bid submi d by Bourget Reservoir Construction Company for th Storage Facility Storage Fai at Big Canyon Reservoir, Contr No. 2022. (3070) (Attached) (g) To staff for report back, a letter from A & B Sts Goldie Joseph requesting the City to delete Alley the policy of requiring an alley between 'W' 091) and "B" Streets between Balboa Boulevard and the Ocean Front in Balboa. (Attached) (h) To staff for reply, a letter from Suzanne West Coast Rudd regarding the West Coast Highway Hwy Widen Widening roject from 57th Street to the (2552) Santa Ana River. (Attached (i) To Pending Legislation and Procedural Ethics State - Committee, a resolution of the City of Yorba dLinda requesting the State Legislature to ;429)nda sstrengthen regulations relating to State- licensed contractors. (Attached) (j) To staff for reply, a letter from John Animal Eversmeyer regarding duck hunters sho ing Control mudhens on ponds in the Big Canyon ountry (862) / X� Club, and requesting that the pe it to shoot wildlife granted to Big Canyo ountry Club to control wildlife be revo d. (Attached) (k) Removed from the Cons Calendar. (1) To Council Budge Committee for report back, request of Par s, Beaches and Recreation Commission r an additional $31,000 to complete a Marinapark capital improvement projec (Attached) 4. The fo owing communications were referred to the Cit Clerk for filing and inclusion in the records: (a) A letter from the Luchau Family expressing appreciation for the Fire, Paramedics and Police Departments and their work in saving their home. (Attached) Volume 32 - Page 287 Marinapark (209) (1893) OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Pate .COPIES SENT TO: ,plyaaseren o ❑Attnager orney ❑City Clerk ❑Other RECEIVED' OCT2719780* _ Mayor City of Newp'o;t �4 `J_�l'i `%� Walker Ree MW Waft, 10/26/78 zoa3 we:m9a or.a Nowport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor Ryckoff and Members of the City Council: n,alsas•n„oru,alsaossaa RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC AREA PLAN AT �r ORANGE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY On Tuesday evening, October 24, 1978, I made a presentation to you in regards'to the background and creation of the Newport Shores Specific Area Plan. I also stated that eight years ago, I represented the Newport Shores Community Association and participated in two years of studies to develop Newport's first Specific Area Plan which would ultimately upgrade and clean up the Newport Shores Commercial Strip and the est Newport entrance into Newport Beach. I also stated that implementation of the Specific Area Plan, without variance, was mandatory. After hearing the well prepared presentation from the Newport Shores Community Association, Newport Shores Homeowners and the owners of the Tradewinds Liquor Store, I do indeed feelothat, before completion of the curbs, gutters and sidewalks, further study may be appropriate. Perhaps this is one traffic area that sincerely should be slated for "Mitigation". If the traffic hazards discussed are valid, I urge -you is follow through with ad6itiorial studies Heeded U det�!riBifae these facts, prior to proceeding with the actual curbing, guttering and aidewalking of the area in question. I also urge you to require that the total improvements slated through to 57th. Street be mandated, and implemented as quickly as possible in order to coincide with current improvements and ensure the �rderly development of the Specific Area Plan. ASi eSi erely, Suzanne Rudd 464 - 62nd. Street cc: Tradewinds Liquor Store Newport Shores Community Association EW PpDeparteu4cllslo� n DATE: T0: FROM: SUBJECT: of Community Development December 22, 1977 Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer FILE COPY t4f3 pinT r David Dmohowski, Advance Planning Administrator Revised Land Use Data for Future - Conditions Model Revised figures for projected additional development (1995) by traffic zone are furnished below. If you have any questions, I would be happy to discuss the assumptions underlying these revised projections. The assumptions used for the Future Conditions Model overall will be documented in a separate report. Traffic Zone 5 County Triangle/Caltrans Property West of Superior Additional Development Should Read: MF 150 DU 19.5 DU/a 1.65 p/DU 248 Persons SFD 137 DU 8 DU/a 2.71 p/DU 316 persons Delete From Previous Data: Ind 5:5 a 47,916 sq. ft. 7 Caltrans Property East of Superior Additional Development Should Read: SFD 160 DU 8 DU/a 2.31 p/DU• 369 persons MF 444 DU 20.8 DU/a 1.74 p/DU 776 persons Med. Office .8a 30,000 sq. ft. 8 NeWDort Shores Additional Development Should Read: No Change. Delete From Previous Data: Remove 64 trailers for harbor entrance. (Trailers remain) F TO: Bill Darnell - 2 Traffic Zone 9 West Newport Additional Development Should Read: Add Duplex 46 DU 20,:DU/a 2.13 p/DU Remove SFD 23 DU 20 DU/a 2.38 p/DU Delete from Previous Data: Remove 30 duplex units for harbor entrance. remain) 17 Cannery Village Additional Development Should.Read: Add Office Add Restaurant Remove Ind. Remove Retail 28,798 sq. ft. 4,450 sq. ft. -43,776 sq. ft. - 5,793 sq. ft. 54 West Bay/R-3-B Site Additional Development Should Read: SFD 225 DU 6 DU/a 3.4 p/DU MF 66 DU 13 DU/a 2.1 p/DU Delete From Previous Data: SFD .20 DU 4.4 DU/a 2.7 p/DU 57 Dunes County Park Additional Development Should Read: 98 persons 55 persons (Duplexes 765 persons 137 persons 54 persons Recreation/Comm. 45.4 a. 25,000 sq. ft., Hotel/Motel - 100,000 sq. ft. Restaurant 2.5 a. 25,000 sq. ft. Fla i 4 ,o m _ F. _ Delete From Previous Data: Remove 292 trailers (Trailers remain) TO: Bill Darnell - Traffic Zone 78 Emkay P-C Additional Development Should Read: Office 45.26 a. 942,675 sq. ft. Hotel 3.1 a. 150 rooms 83,000 sq, ft. Restaurant - 5,000 sq. ft. Delete From Previous Data: Commercial 3.9 a. 50,965 sq. ft. Industrial 18.32 a. 239,406 sq. ft. 81 Koll Center Newport Additional Development Should Read: Office 20.6 a. 923,448 sq. ft. Restaurant 4.0 a. 40,000 sq. ft.. Delete From Previous Data: Commercial 5.5 a. 53,000 sq. ft. Hotel 7.0 a. 200 rooms 120,000 sq. ft. 82 Koll Center Newport Additional Development Should Read: Office 41.5 a. 966,916 sq. ft. Restaurant Z4,100 sq. ft. Industrial 25,000 sq. ft. Delete From Previous Data: Commercial .9 a. 1,000 sq. ft. 90 Freeway'Reservation East (a) Additional Development Should Read: SFD 104 DU 4 DU/a 3.4 p/DU 353 persons Delete From Previous Data: No future growth on freeway reservation. DD: jmb CITY OF bgmpbN bbb MASTER PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ■ FREEWAY MAJOR ROAD (6 LANE DIVIDED) PRIMARY ROAD (4 LANE DIVIDED) ROAD ❑SECONDARY (4 LANE UNDIVIDED) SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR INTERCHANGE .iN.B. CITY BOUNDARY MAJORRAY ••,D QINTERCHANGE SIX •�� . ROAD FREEWAY DOPTED . D D D ROUTES � • PRIMARY ROAD BRIDGE MODIFIED � Rya �� • -: SECONDARY ROAD FOUR LANE UNDIVIDEDCOORDINATION ROUTES mw REQUIRE FURTHER -tip.. .. `�•• ..: � g A N ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL scale's in feet -- MARCH 11, 1974 LEGEND - CURRENT GENERAL PLAN * - GENERAL PLAN PRIOR TO AMENDMENT 78-2 * ADT IN THOUSANDS ® - AREAS AFFECTED 8Y AMENDMENT 78-2 30 ¢ 61 30 a 61 4 T /, /rss1990p09y B `133 !to -N 2 4E I IO2 i 102� r 140 r 115 t it 45 il6 i 49 t tl e� e 00 34 � � 59 , •? °- a �' 65 68 �/� � $� ^ C 69 t:a�io^ / .." 68 '��'-� � /dam �• ! �i' �!.`+. e✓ � ?Qar� O i d✓ �I§° � i• q-^�.•P fir- � `�.,_d' 62. eeeeee9 54 u e y ^� . ..^. e \ix�� ,y��': J� �' 62 1.7� \`rk ,_"•� � �� 1• �3 ➢4P1�':tt.ypQ� 0 65 59 empa� - --' - s 0 SQL �� l e� -- s e �; �'•i i�i i� �' : j 70 ti .s• �%-• " � 62 •Qf°Q QQC�� �`r, L• . 70 ii[Vt;yEi 42•�- iT�jif� 70 I(eJ� I 43 F /. a #sanianv w� 50 30 ADRCBY CITY COUNCIL r cale in feet H 1 _ C£.AF.0'if, f974 wI Robert Stoessel O..Box 684 ft Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. Richard Clucas Mr. David Tosh Incentive Industries, Inc. 4821 Dorchester Road 1457 Superior Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Dan Gilliland Mrs. Virginia Vosburg 1134 East Balboa Blvd. New Vista Grande Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach,, CA 92660 MMrs. Jeanne Giordano Mrs. Jean Watt Mrs 4 Harbor Island Drive 626 Seaward Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. John Haskell Mr. Frank Jank P. 0. Box 1028 1741 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Ron Kennedy 550 Hazel Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. William Lusk P. 0. Box C-19560 Irvine, CA 92713 Mr. Calvin McLaughlin 544 Seaward Road t r' Corona_ del Mar, CA 92625 1 Mr. Hal Pinchin P. 0. Box 18.7 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 t: Mr. O.E. Schroeder AAA , 659 W. 19th Street Costa Mesa, CA -92627 Mr. Merrill Skilling 6610 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 �Newport Crest Homeowners' j �1r. Mike Stamenson, Pres. �DyC 12 Barlovento, Pres. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Knolls Comm. c/o Devine Prop. Box 687 2865 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 M Ass Old Town Newport Assoc. to Mr. Fran Urcini, Pres. 2200 W. Ocean Front Newport•Beach, CA 92663 Assoc. Newport Heights Improv. Assoc. Park Lido Assoc., Inc. Mr. Roland Landrigan, Pres. Mr. Harry Holly, Pres. 535 E1 Modena cho Park Lido Assoc. Newport Beach, CA 92663 2172 Dupont Drive Suite 17 Irvine, CA 92664 Irvine Terrace Com. Assoc. Mr. C. M. Gepfert, Pres. 711 Santana Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Isle Comm. Assoc. Mr. Hugh Cripe, Pres. 701 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Jasmine Creek Comm. Assoc. Mr. Cork Schriber, Pres. c/o Village Management P. 0. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Linda Isle Comm. Assoc. Mr. E. W. Sparr, Pres. 17 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 Lido Sands Comm. Assoc. Mr. Gredd Reinker, Pres. 5319 Bruce Crescent Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lido Shops Association Mrs. Patricia Harrison, Pres. 3424 Via Lido Newport Beach, CA '92663 Little Balboa Island Property Owners Assoc. Mr. George Ingles, Pres. P. 0. Box 74 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Mariners Community Assoc. Mr. Terence Welch, Pres. 1301 Oxford Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660, Newport Beach Townhouse Owners' Association Mr. Charles Smith, Pres. c/o Coldwell Banker anon ManAr+hur_N R C•0 Q21;6n___ Newport Hills Community Assoc. Parkcrest Community Assoc. Mr. Bruce Harrington, Pres. Mr. Miles Peterson, Pres. 1931 Port Laurant Place c/o Devine Prop. Box 687 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 0 Newport Center Association Mr. Richard McFarland, Pres 170 Newport Center Drive Suite 1,20 !Newport Beach., CA 92660 Newport Island Association Mr. Virgil Kingsley, Pres. P. 0. Box 1162 Newport Beach, CA 92663 !Newport Shores Community Assoc. Ms. Nina Jarvis, Pres. 335 Canal Newport'Beach, CA 92663 Newport Terrace Homeowners' Association Mr. Chanciford Mounce, Pres. 17 Latitude Court Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Upper Bay Estates Mr. Tim Shepard 2215 Anniversary Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 North Bluff Bay View Community Association Mr. Robert Jacobs, Pres. 201 Nata Newport Beach, CA 92660 Plaza Homeowners' Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Diana Vorshick, Pres. 2337 Vista Huerta Newport Beach, CA 92660 Promontory Bay Comm. Assoc. Mr. Richard Bare, Pres. c/o Devine Prop. - P. 0. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Seawind Comm. Assoc. Mr. Kaz Ochi, Pres. 2350 Port Aberdeen, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Seawind-Newport Comm. Assoc. Mr. Jacque Clark, Pres. c/o Devine Prop. P. 0. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA -92625 Shorecliffs Community Assoc. Mr. Sandford Waddell, Pres. 202 Seaward Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Spyglass Hill Comm. Assoc. Mr. George McCarter, Pres. c/o Homeowners' Management Co. P. 0. Box C-19560 Irvine, CA 92713 North Bluff Park Comm. Assoc. Spyglass Ridge Comm. Assoc. c/o Condominium Account Mr. Lester Schunk, Pres. Management Services 1612 Reef View Circle 14600 Goldenwest , Suite 102 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Westminster, CA 92683 North Bluff Villas Comm. Assoc. Mr. Jack Fox, Pres. c/o Devine Prop. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Villa Granada Comm. Assoc. Mr. John Wilton, Pres. c/o Devine Prop. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 aroadmoor Hills Comm. Assoc. Cliff Haven Comm. Assoc. l r:.Phil Arst,� President 1WMr. Bob Cooper, Pres. P. 0. Box 651 41.8 Signal Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa Coves Community Assoc. Mr. George Forteville, Pres. #3 Balboa Coves Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa Improvement Assoc. Mr. Leslie J. Harrison, Pres. 2270 Channel Road Balboa, CA 92661 Balboa Island Business Assoc. Mr. Tony Horvat, Pres. P. 0. Box 442 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island Improvement Assoc Mrs. Gail Smith, Pres. P. 0. Box 64 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Peninsula Point Assoc. Mr. Robert Spreen, Pres. 2258 Channel Road Balboa, CA 92661 Bay Island Club, Inc. Mr. Howard Morgridge, #1 Bay Island Pres. Newport -Beach, CA 92661 Bayshores Comm. Assoc. Mr. Ray Infantina, Pres. 2560 Marino Drive. v Newport Beach, CA 92663 Beacon Bay Comm. Mr. R. T. Forbes, #40 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CP Assoc. Pres. Big Canyon Community Assoc. Mr. Ray Geiler, Pres. 12 Rue Sainl'Cloud Newport Beach, CA 92660 B1Uffs Homeowners' Assoc. Mr. Richard Millar, Pres. 2414 Vista del Oro Newport Beach, CA 92660 Broadmoor Seaview Mrs. Raymond Brock, Pres 1911 Yacht Truant Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cameo Community Association Mr. David Dana, III, Pres. 4545 Tremont Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Crest Community Assoc. Mr. David Evans, Pres. Devine Properties, Inc. 2865 E. Coast Highway P. 0. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Hills Community Assoc. Mr. Robert Currie, Pres. Devine Prop., Inc.Box 687 2865 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Island Community Assoc. Mr. William Helm, Pres. Devine Prop., Boc 687 2865 East Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Lakes Community Assoc. Mr. Ken Sharpe, Pres. Devine Prop., Box 687 2865 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Point Community Assoc. Mr. Marvin B. Kapelus, Pres. P. 0. Box 1791 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cannery Village.Association Ms. Hilary Imes, Pres. 501 31st Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Central Newport Beach Comm. Assoc Mrs. Bobby Lovell, Pres. 1242 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 Channel Reef Comm. Assoc. Mr. Karl Zonn, Pres. 2525 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona del Mar Civic Assoc. Ron Kennedy, Pres. 550 Hazel Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Highlands Property Owners Association Mrs. Claire Wesner, Pres. 520 Deanza Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dover Shores Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Dorothy Doan, Pres. c/o Devine Prop. Box 687 2865 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 East Bluff Homeowners' Assoc. Gary Schaumburg, Pres. 2900 Alta Vista Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Fashion Island Merchants Association Mr. James McCoy, Pres. 2 Fashion Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 Four Fours Association Mr. Roy Jnutson, Pres. 2504 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Island Comm. Assoc. Mr. John Porter, Pres. 16 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92663 Harbor View Community Assoc. Mr. Bob Scott, Pres. 1955 Port Province Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Hilils Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Jean Morris, Pres. 1032 Sea Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Harbor View Hills Homeowners' Association Mr. William Collinson, Pres. 887 Sandcastle Drive r" Ors. Jean Watt S.P.0.N. P. 0. Box 102 Balboa Island, West Newport Beach Improvement. Association Mrs. Margot Skilling, Pres. 6610 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce Mrs. Luvena Hayton, Pres. 2855 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, Rudy Baron, Pres. Dan Rogers, Ex. Director 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Island Chamber of Commerce Mr. Lew Ackerman, Pres. 333 Marine Avenue Suite 6 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Robert Shelton The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tim Strader Koll Center Newport; 1901 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Robert Alleborn Emkay Development Co. 1201 Dove Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tom Morrissey Ford Aerospace & Ford Road Communications Newport Beach, CA 92663 CA 92662 Friends of the Upper Bay P. 0. Box 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Board of Realtors N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dennis Reid 1754 E. Ocean Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 OCee Ritch 214 Via Cordova Newport Beach, CA Robert Schaller 265 Evening Canyon Corona del Mar, CA Deborah Allen 1021 Whitesails Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 y ,� Charles E. Brown Joseph Tomchak 2661 Basswood Street 401 Pirates Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Road 92625 92663 Anita Ferguson Jean Wegener 5103 Seashore Drive 440 Riveria Terrace Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Preston Johns Bobby Lovell 1242 W. Ocean Front 412 E. Balboa Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Jerry King Mrs. Margot Skilling 979 Sandcastle Drive 6610 W. Ocean Front Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Bob Millar 116 Crystal Avenue Balboa Island, CA Seth Oberg, Jr. 2012 Galaxy.Drive Newport Beach, CA Nancy Kimble 407 Snug Harbor 92662 Newport Beach, CA 92660 92660 Thomas Waters 300 E. Coast Highway #76 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bill Banning Beeco Limited P. 0. Box 1028 Bernard Pegg 2633 Bamboo Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Bill Morris 1601 Port Stirling Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 Wrs. Jeanne Giordano 26 Seaward Road Mrs. Jean Watt 04 Harbor Island'Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Philip Arst Mr. John Haskell Mr. Frank Jank 2601 Lighthouse Lane Beeco, Ltd. 1741 Irvine Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 P. 0. Box 1028 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 J- Hal Thomas '"" " Mr. Ron Kennedy Charles Hirsch 17. Via••Havre 550 Hazel Drive McNab Irvine Company Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Joan Petty Mr. William Lusk Mr. Chester King 1720 Kings Road P. 0. Box C-19560 i 1061 Dover Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine, CA 92713 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Merrill Skilling t Mr. Calvin McLaughlin 1 6610 W. Ocean Front 544 Seaward Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 I Ensign Newspaper Mr. Hal Pinchin P. 0. Box 187 2721 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Ma r, CA 92625 Corona del Ma Newporter-Mesa News Mr. O.E. Schroeder Automobile Club of So. CA. 350 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 West Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Cos a, C - I Daily Pilot Newspaper Mr. Merrill Skilling 3Z West Bay Avenue 6610 West Ocean Front Costa Mesa, CA .92626 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Los Angeles Times Mr. Robert Stoessel Time Mirror Square P. 0. Box 684 Los Angeles, CA 90033 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Attn: Legal Dept. Mr. Richard Clucas • Mr. David Tosh Incentive Industries, Inc. 4821 Dorchester Road 1457 Superior Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Dan Gilliland Mrs. Virginia Vosbura 1134 East Balboa Blvd. 433 Vista Grande Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 OT CITY !OF, NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING ON CIRCULATION SYSTEM STUDY The Planning Commission has scheduled a special stu.dy session to discuss the Circulation System Study on Thursday, January 25th at 7:3Q P.M. in the City Council Chambers. A report will be made on the city-wide Traffic Model project which is designed to predict future levels of traffic on the City`s major road system. Other topics which have been discussed in connection with the Circulation System Study include the accepts-bility of the current Master Plan of Streets and Highways, design alternatives fo•r future roadway and intersection improvements, and the carrying capacity of the Circulation System. This study was initiated by the City Council and is expected to result in recommendations for amendments to the Land Use Element and Circulation Element, of the General Plan. The public is encouraged to participate in these discussions. Written comments addressed to the Planning Commission are welcomed. Contact David Dmohowski, Advance 'Planning Administrator for further information at 640-2261. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Newport Crest Homeowners' Mike Stamenson, Pres. Barlovento, Pres. -'� wport Beach, CA 92660 r y •h Harbor View Knolls Comm. c/o Devine Prop. Box 687 2865 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Assoc. Old Town Newport Assoc. Fran Urcini, Pres. 00 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 Assoc. Newport Heights Improv. Assoc. Park Lido Assoc., Inc. Mr. Roland Landrigan, Pres. Mr. Harry Holly, Pres. 535 E1 Modena c/o Park Lido Assoc.. Newport Beach, CA 92663 2172 Dupont Drive Suite 17 Irvine, CA 92664 Irvine Terrace Com. Assoc. Mr. C. M. Gepfert, Pres. 711 Santana Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Lido Isle Comm. Assoc. Mr. Hugh Cripe, Pres. 701 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Jasmine Creek Comm. Assoc Mr. Cork Schriber, Pres. c/o Village Management P. 0. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 Linda Isle Comm. Mr. E. W. Sparr, T7 Linda Isle Assoc. Pres. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Lido Sands Comm. Assoc... Mr. Gredd Reinker, Pres. 5319 Bruce Crescent ' Newport.Beach, CA 92663 Lido Shops Association Mrs. Patricia Harrison, Pres. 3424 Via Lido Newport Beach, CA • 92663 Little Balboa Island Property Owners Asson. Mr. George Ingles, Pres. P. 0. Box 74 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Mariners Community Assoc. Mr. Terence Welch, Pres. 1301 Oxford Lane IlNewport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Hills Community Assoc. Parkcrest Community Assoc. Mr. Bruce Harrington, Pres. Mr. Miles Peterson, Pres. '1931 Port Laurant Place c/o Devine Prop. Box 687 'Newport Beach, CA 92660 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 'Newport Center Association iMr. Richard McFarland, Pres. '170 Newport Center Drive Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Island Association Mr. Virgil Kingsley, Pres. P. 0. Box 1162 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Newport Shores Community Assoc. Ms. Nina Jarvis, Pres. 335 Canal Newport Beach, CA 92663 t Newport Terrace Homeowners' Association Mr. Chanciford Mounce, Pres. 17 Latitude Court Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Upper'Bay Estates' Mr. Tim Shepard 2215 'Anniversary Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 t North Bluff Bay View Community Association Mr. Robert Jacobs, Pres. 201 Nata Newport Beach, CA 92660 Plaza Homeowners' Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Diana Vorshick, Pres. 2337 Vista Huerta Newport Beach, CA 92660 Promontory Bay Comm. Assoc. Mr. Richard Bare, Pres. c/o Devine Prop. P. 0. Box 687 ,Corona del Mar, CA- 92625 Seawind Comm. Assoc. Mr. Kaz Ochi, Pres. 2350 Port Aberdeen, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Seawind-Newport Comm: Assoc. Mr. Jacque Clark, Pres. c/o Devine Prop. P. 0. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Shorecliffs Community Assoc. Mr. Sandford Waddell, Pres. 202 Seaward Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Spyglass Hill Comm. Assoc. Mr. George McCarter, Pres. c/o Homeowners' Management Co. P. 0. Box C-19560 Irvine, CA 92713 North Bluff Park Comm. Assoc. Spyglass Ridge Comm. Assoc. c/o Condominium Account Mr. Lester Schunk, Pres. Management Services 1612 Reef View Circle 14600 Goldenwest , Suite 102 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Westminster, CA 92683 ,Newport Beach Townhouse Owners' Association 'MIr. Charles Smith, Pres. Ic/o Coldwell Banker inn n.t�.n 'L---- ,i n ..A "A. ...-.. --- North Bluff Villas Comm. Mr. Jack Fox, Pres. c/o Devine Prop. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA' 92625 Assoc. Villa Granada Comm. Assoc. Mr. John Wilton, Pres. c/o -Devine Prop. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Balboa Coves Community Assoc. Mr. George Forteville, Pres. #3 Balboa Coves Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa Improvement Assoc. Mr. Leslie J. Harrison, Pres. 2270 Channel Road Balboa, CA 92661 Balboa Island Business Assoc. Mr. Tony Horvat, Pres. P. 0. Box 442 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island Improvement Assoc., Mrs. Gail Smith, Pres. P. 0. Box 64 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Peninsula Point Assoc. Mr. Robert Spreen, Pres. 2258 Channel Road Balboa, CA 92661 Bay Island Club, Inc. Mr. Howard Morgridge, #1 Bay Island Pres. Newport --Beach, CA 92661 Bayshores Comm. Assoc. I Richard .Bendheiu , Pres. 2742. Bays hore'-Driye Newport• Beach;, CA- 9266.3,,E Beacon Bay Comm. Mr. R. T. Forbes, 040 Beacon Bay Newport Beach, CA Assoc. Pres. 92660 Big Canyon Community Assoc. Mr. Ray Geiler, Pres. 12 Rue Sainl'Cloud Newport Beach, CA 92660 k-O. admoor Hills Comm. Assoc. Phil Arst� President Box 651 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Broadmoor Seaview Mrs. Raymond Brock, Pres. 1911 Yacht Truant Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cameo Community Association Mr. David Dana, III, Pres. 4545 Tremont Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Crest Community Assoc Mr. David Evans, Pres. Devine Properties, Inc. 2865 E. Coast Highway P. 0. Box 687 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Hills Community Assoc Mr. Robert Currie, Pres. Devine Prop.,°Inc.Box 687 2865 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Canyon Island Community Assoc. Mr. William Helm, Pres. Devine Prop., Boc 687 2865 East Coast Highway Corona del -Mar, CA 92625 Canyon•Lakes Community Assoc. Mr. Ken Sharpe, Pres. Devine Prop., Box 687 2865 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA •92625 Canyon Point Community Assoc. Mr. Marvin B. Kapelus, Pres. P. 0. Box 1791 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cannery Village Association Ms. Hilary Imes, Pres. 501 31st Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Central Newport Beach Comm. Mrs. Bobby Lovell, Pres. 1242 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cliff Haven Comm. Assoc. Bob Cooper, Pres. 18 Signal Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar Civic Assoc. Ron Kennedy, Pres. 550 Hazel Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Corona Highlands Property Owners Association Mrs. Claire Wesner, Pres. 520 Deanza Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 a ' Assoc Dover Shores Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Dorothy Doan, Pres. c/o Devine Prop. Box 687 2865 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 East Bluff Homeowners' Assoc. Gary Schaumburg, Pres. 2900 Alta Vista Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Fashion Island Merchants Association Mr. James McCoy, Pres. 2 Fashion Island Newport Beach, CA 92660 Four Fours Association Mr. Roy Jnutson, Pres. 2504 University Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor Island Comm. Assoc. Mr. John Porter, Pres. 16 Harbor Island Newport Beach, CA 92663 Harbor View Community Assoc. Mr. Bob Scott, Pres. 1955 Port Province Newport Beach, CA 92660 Harbor View Hilils Comm. Assoc. Mrs. Jean Morris, Pres. 1032 Sea Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Bluffs Homeowners' Assoc. Channel Reef Comm. Assoc. Mr. Richard Millar, Pres. Mr. Karl Zonn, Pres. 2414 Vista del Oro 2525 Ocean Blvd. o.. L. _ CA naccn Cnrnna del Mar. CA 9262E Harbor View Hills Homeowners' Association Mr. William Collinson, Pres. F . r .W. West Newport Beach Improvement Association Mrs. Margot Skilling, Pres. 6610 W. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce Mrs. Luvena Hayton, Pres. 2855 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 R Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, Rudy Baron, Pres. Dan Rogers, Ex. Director 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Balboa Island Chamber of Commerce Mr. Lew Ackerman, Pres. 333 Marine Avenue Suite 6 Balboa Island, CA 92662 a CITY OF mp10 0[�� 0 @& MASTER PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ■ FREEWAY MAJOR ROAD (6 LANE DIVIDED) PRIMARY ROAD (4 LANE DIVIDED) SECONDARY ROAD (4 LANE UNDIVIDED) JOAQUIN HILLS ©SAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR FOC INTERCHANGE F- N.B. CITY BOUNDARY CITY OF [o'pwQ MASTER PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 0 FREEWAY MAJOR ROAD (6 LANE DIVIDED) PRIMARY ROAD (4 LANE DIVIDED) ROAD ❑SECONDARY (4 LANE UNDIVIDED) SAN JOAOUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR INTERCHANGE •� IN BE CITY BOUNDARY G� XNE N FEET o eoo xm a