HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2003_12_08lill 11111111111111111111111111 lill 1111111
*NEW FILE*
f'w.oerft �nn,% oig na
December 8, 2003
7:00-9:00 p.m.
7:00 I.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Call to Order
7:05 II. Approval of Minutes
November 10, 2003
7:15 III. Traffic Study Update
Police Department Auditorium
870 Santa Barbara Drive
8:15 IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items and Schedule
8:50 V. Public Comments
,•
Fplt".,
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
November 10, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Florence Felton
Phillip Lugar
Patrick Bartolic
Nancy Gardner
Charles Remley
Phillip Bettencourt
Bob Hendrickson
Larry Root
Carol Boice
Tom Hyans
John Saunders
Karlene Bradley
Mike Ishikawa
James Schmiesing
Gus Chabre
Kim Jansma
Jan Vandersloot
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Tom Webber
Laura Dietz
Bill Kelly
Ron Yeo
Grace Dove
Donald Krotee
Members Absent:
Louise Greeley Marie Marston Carl Ossipoff
Ernest Hatchell Peter Oeth Ed Siebel
Lucille Kuehn Catherine O'Hara Jackie Sukiasian
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Patrick Alford, Senior Planner
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Members of the Public Present:
Carol Hoffman
I. Call to Order
Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order.
II. Approval of Minutes
• The minutes of the October 13, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted.
Phillip Bettencourt asked if Lucy Dunn would be asked to address the group at a
future meeting. Sharon Wood stated she was waiting for contact information
and then Ms. Dunn would be invited.
III. Hoag Hospital Presentation
Sharon Wood introduced Peter Foulke and Debra Legan from Hoag Hospital. Mr.
Foulke reviewed the hospital's long range development plans (presentation
attached). During and after the presentation the following questions were
raised.
Ms. Wood asked if it was important to have medical office space near the
hospital or if it could be located anywhere in the region. Mr. Foulke indicated the
prime real estate for medical offices is right next to the hospital; however there
is also a lot of office space at Newport Center and the doctors there also use
Hoag.
Charles Remley asked how many more jobs would be created with the new
development. Mr. Foulke stated that there would be some new jobs (3-5%) but
not many due to the fact that the current development is largely replacement of
• older/smaller facilities.
John Saunders asked if Hoag would be sharing any parking with the medical
offices. Mr. Foulke stated the parking at the hospital is for patients, visitors and
staff, the medical offices are required to have their own parking available.
•
Bob Hendrickson asked what out -patient services are provided for the 280,000
patients annually. Mr. Foulke indicated imaging services (MRI, CT, x-ray, etc.),
lab work, GI procedures, chemotherapy, mammography, ultrasound, physical
and respiratory therapy, etc.
Mike Johnson asked about the traffic impact on surrounding streets with the
expansion. Mr. Foulke stated they had done traffic studies and traffic impact is
relatively minimal.
Don Krotee stated he received a public notice regarding carcinogenic material
being released due to the construction and asked if it was due to the co-gen
plant building. Mr. Foulke stated he was not aware of this notice and pointed
out that they have gone through all the AQMD procedures to insure a clean
operation.
2
Carol Boice asked if the hospitals in neighboring areas were expanding at the
• same rate. Mr. Foulke stated that Saddleback is expanding, Irvine Medical
Center is filling up and a Kaiser Hospital is being built next to it.
Patrick Bartolic asked about the current square footage and what it will be
adding the current development. Mr. Foulke responded that the facility is
currently a little over 600,000 sq. ft. and they are adding another 300,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Bartolic asked if any consideration was given to the new building blocking
the view from Newport Heights neighborhood. Mr. Foulke stated the building is
within height limits and the new building does not block out the entire view of
the ocean.
Kim Jansma asked if the hospital has anything to do with the loss of radio
reception in the area. Mr. Foulke said no.
Jan Vandersloot asked if the hospital intended to address additional traffic
cutting through the Newport Heights neighborhood. Mr. Foulke did not think the
hospital would cause traffic to use that route; Coast Highway is a much easier
way to get to the hospital. Mr. Vandersloot also asked about the `old master
plan for the hospital and the configuration of the campus. Mr. Foulke indicated
that the "master plan" does not locate buildings; it sets height limits, set backs,
total square feet, etc.
• Laura Dietz asked about the delivery system for gas to the co-gen building. Mr.
Foulke indicated it would be the same commercial system they are using now.
Karlene Bradley indicated that Louise Greeley asked her to raise the question of
putting a medical office building on Westminster Street. Mr. Foulke stated the
hospital did not need any additional property at this time. Ms. Bradley also
asked about fumes she sees when she walks Sunset Ridge which she believes to
be pollution. Mr. Foulke indicated that area has a lot of methane gas in the
ground, Hoag vacuums the gas and scrubs it clean which meets AQMD
standards. He added that if the gas was not processed, it would leak up through
the ground and have a foul odor. Bill Kelley asked if the methane could be
burned in the co-gen plant. Mr. Foulke said yes they use it now.
Ms. Wood asked if the hospital has any impact on the hotel business in the City
by attracting patients from distances where they would need somewhere local to
stay. Mr. Foulke indicated that the hospital is not of the nature like the Mayo
Clinic, most patients are from the local area. However, the hospital does get
patients from the hotel business when visitors are in need of care while on
vacation here.
3
Tom Webber asked how the co-gen plant would operate after a major
• earthquake if gas service was knocked out. Mr. Foulke indicated they have
diesel fuel stored to work the generators which are tested on a weekly basis.
Ron Yeo asked if the hospital would expand beyond the current allotted square
footage looking out 20-25 years. Mr. Foulke said currently they look out 10-12
years and it appears the allotment will be adequate to that point, but anything
could happen looking out 20-25 years.
IV. Biological Resources Addendum
Sharon Wood introduced Dr. Bruce Barnett with EIP Associates who was asked
to look at several sites in the City in response to GPAC's concerns with the
Biological Resources Report presented at the July 7th meeting. Dr. Bruce Barnett
did the work and produced the Addendum and presented the information.
Nancy Gardner asked about the designation of the sites studied as areas that
might be developed and the fact that Buck Gully and Morning Canyon cannot be
developed. Ms. Wood indicted that in those areas the thought was development
in terms of improvements or additions to the homes that already exist. Dr.
Barnett also pointed out the information could be useful if any restoration
activities occur.
• Tom Webber asked why the report used data from occurrences in 1932 when
determining the ranking for sites. Dr. Barnett explained that if there is a
known/documented occurrence of species in an area, it must be reflected. The
ranking system that was developed for the addendum does not rely on the old
data and rank the area as a "1", the ranking was based on the old data and the
fact that habitat exists that could support the species; however further survey
work is necessary.
r1
U
Jan Vandersloot asked about the MacArthur/San Miguel site, he submitted
information to Sharon Wood about the area (copies will be provided with the
agenda packet for 12/8). After discussion, it appears the site studied (Newport
Village) was not the area intended by staff.
Phillip Bettencourt asked if this documentation would be satisfactory for the
Coastal Commission staff for LCP purposes. Patrick Alford indicated commends
had not yet been received on the Coastal Resources chapter; however based on
other comments he is not sure that this will necessarily satisfy them.
Gus Chabre asked what was happening with the eelgrass issue since it was not
addressed in the addendum. Mr. Alford responded by saying that the direction
he has received from the Mayor and LCP Certification Committee is that staff is
0
to develop policy(s) with the strategy of establishing a baseline and try to avoid
• conflicts between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coastal Commission.
Ron Yeo asked about the timing of the LCP certification. Mr. Alford could not
give a definitive answer yet, staff has revised Chapters, 1, 2 and 3 and Chapter 4
is underway. After revisions, the next step is to go to local hearings which may
occur in the first part of next year.
Tom Webber pointed out that the small orientation maps in the lower left corner
of the Addendum attachments do not match the maps. Dr. Barnett indicated he
would have that looked into.
Mr. Chabre asked about the impacts of the properties adjacent to the ranked
sites. Mr. Alford responded that in most of those cases, a Coastal Development
Permit will need to be issued.,
Mr. Bartolic asked Ms. Wood about the parameters used in the selection of the
sites included in the study and if economics had any impact. Ms. Wood stated
that economics had no impact; the areas were selected based on the staffs
knowledge of the City, past discussions about different areas, agreements like
CIOSA and open space areas.
• Charles Remley asked about the mapping of coastal dunes which change
regularly. Dr. Barnett agreed that the dunes change regularly and stated that
the mapping is used to reduce areas of concern, rather than rank the whole area
as coastal dune.
V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Sharon Wood advised that additional work has been done on the Traffic Study
and will be brought back at the next meeting on December 8th. Woodie Tescher
also thought a tentative schedule for the group would be presented at the next
meeting.
VI. Public Comments
No comments offered.
•
E
• i •
Hoag Hospital Update
Newport Beach
General Plan Advisory Committee
November 10, 2003
Hoag Hospital Today
■ 353 Available beds
• 3,640 Employees
■ 925 Physicians on staff
■ 24,600 In -patients cared for per year
• 280,000 Out -patients cared for per year
• 4,800 Babies born per year
H0119
HOA9
HOSKM
Agenda
• Hoag Hospital Today
• Current construction projects
— East Tower/Women's Pavilion
— Co-gen Plant
— West Tower retrofit and remodel
• Future plans
— Upper Campus
— Lower Campus
HOAR'
Current Projects
• West Tower Remodel
— 10th, 9th, 8th complete
— Balance to be finished by 2008
• East Tower/Women's Pavilion
— Steel infrastructure to be complete in January 2004
— Skin/Exterior to be complete in May 2004
— Open to patients in late 2005
• Co -Gen Plant
— To be operational in February 2005
HOAG'
11
Future Planning
• Future plans include
— Increase bed capacity to meet growing and aging
population
— Expand Emergency Care Unit
— Increase critical care beds
— Expand Heart and Vascular, Cancer and
Neurosciences Services
— Expand and consolidate Outpatient Diagnostic
capabilities
— Increase support services to meet expanded
capacity 8m
HUSPHu
;i
,_« _•�i
? -
Master Plan Agreement
■ Total Allowable
• Currently Occupied
■ Available to Build
1, 343,238 sq. ft.
647,613 sq. ft.
695,726 sq. ft.
(Plus Demolition)
Possible Upper Campus Expansion
How
• i •
Hoag Hospital Update
Newport Beach
General Plan Advisory Committee
November 10, 2003
Questions ?
H0119
HOWIM
How
„DRUX
The Next Decade
• Orange County's fastest growing age segment is
45-65 year olds.
• 45-65 year olds are the highest utilizers of specialty
medical services.
• Advances in medical techniques are trending away
from surgery and towards cath labs, interventional
radiology suites and outpatient settings.
• Only the most acute patients will require
hospitalization.
HOE
HWIM
. DRAFT
TRAFFIC MODEL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CURRENTLY ADOPTED
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT FORECASTS
0
0
Prepared For:
Mr. Rich Edmonston
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Prepared By:
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
41 Corporate Park, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92606
John Kain, AICP
Carleton Waters, P.E.
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.
March 26, 2003
December 3, 2003 (Revised)
JK:CW:MW:jb
JN:01232-03
n
LJ
r�
L
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Basic Methodology and Assumptions
2.0 MODEL STRUCTURE/EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................... 6
2.1 Existing Land Use Data
2.2 2002 Socioeconomic Data (SED)
2.3 2002 Trip Generation
2.3.1 Trip Purpose
2.4 2002 Mode Choice
2.4.1 Home -Work Trip Mode Choice Data
2.5 2002 Trip Distribution
2.6 2002 Daily Traffic Conditions
2.7 Peak Season Daily Traffic Volume Data
2.8 Daily Roadway Segment Analysis
2.9 2002 Traffic Source Analysis
2.10 2002 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
3.0 CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS........ 45
3.1 General Plan Buildout Land Use Data
3.2 General Plan Buildout Socioeconomic Data (SED)
3.3 Buildout Trip Generation
3.4 Buildout Daily Traffic Conditions
3.5 Daily Roadway Segment Analysis
3.6 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Operations
LIST OF EXHIBITS
,EXHIBIT PAGE
A NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) PRIMARY
STUDYAREA.................................................................................. 3
B TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICTS .................................................... 7
C MODE CHOICE FOR WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT
BEACH RESIDENTS....................................................................... 13
D MODE CHOICE FOR HOME -WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT
BEACH WORKERS......................................................................... 14
E PURPOSE FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH
BYDESTINATION........................................................................... 16
F PURPOSE OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH ......... 18
G DESTINATIONS OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH... 19
H PURPOSE OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH
BYORIGIN...................................................................................... 20
I PURPOSES OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH ......... 21
J ORIGINS OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH ............. 22
K NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING THROUGH LANES ......................... 23
L EXISTING COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ................... 24
M SUMMER DAILY TRAFFIC VARIATION FOR NEWPORT BLVD.
BETWEEN 32ND & FINLEY.............................................................. 29
N EXISTING DAILY VOLUME TO CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS ................ 32
0 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC SURVEY CORDON LOCATIONS...... 34
P TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR NB COAST HIGHWAY
SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE ............................................ 35
Q TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB COAST HIGHWAY
SOUTH OF SANTA ANA RIVER ....................................................... 37
F
• R TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB MACARTHUR BLVD.
NORTH OF BONITA CANYON DRIVE .............................................. 38
S INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS ............................................. 40
T EXISTING INTERSECTION DEFICIENCIES ..................................... 44
U NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
THROUGHLANES............................................................................ 51
V GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)...... 52
W CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN VOLUME TO
CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS................................................................. 54
X CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN DEFICIENCIES ............. 59
•
LIST OF TABLES •
TABLE PAGE
1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O02 LAND' USE SUMMARY .......... 8
2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED 2002
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY .............................................. 9
3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O02 TRIP GENERATION ...................
11
4
SUMMER TIME AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) COMPARISON.
27
5
SUMMER DAILY VOLUME VARIATION OVER THREE WEEKS .....
28
6
ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITIES ................................................
31
7
NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY.
42
8
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
LANDUSE SUMMARY......................................................................
46
9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRIP LAND USE BASED
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY/COMPARISON.....................
47 •
10
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
TRIP GENERATION.........................................................................
49
11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRIP GENERATION
COMPARISON..................................................................................
50
12 NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION,CAPACITY
UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY....................................................... 56
•
• TRAFFIC MODEL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CURRENTLY ADOPTED
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT FORECASTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This executive summary has been prepared to provide an overview of existing traffic
conditions and forecasts of future conditions, based on the currently adopted General Plan
of the City of Newport Beach. The General Plan forecasts have been prepared using the
Newport Beach Traffic Model, version 3.1 (NBTM 3.1). The NBTM 3.1 travel demand
forecasting tool has been developed for the City of Newport Beach to address traffic and
circulation issues in and around the City. The NBTM 3.1 tool has been developed in
accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the Orange County Subarea
Modeling Guidelines Manual (August, 1998). The NBTM 3.1 is intended to be used, for
roadway planning and traffic impact analysis, such as:
• . General Plan/Land Use analysis required by the City of Newport Beach.
• Amendments to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis.
The NBTM 3.1 is a vehicle trip based modeling tool, and it is intended for evaluating
general roadway system supply and demand problems and issues. The NBTM 3.1 has
been specifically calibrated to provide the most representative conditions in the City of
Newport Beach. This is sometimes described as "shoulder season" conditions, which are
experienced in the spring and fall seasons.
NBTM 3.1 differs from previous Newport Beach Traffic Models in several key ways. First,
NBTM 3.1 is a traffic model that includes most of Southern California, although the level of
detail is much less for areas further away from Newport Beach. Previous versions were
"windowed" models, that ended a short distant beyond the City's primary modeling area.
NBTM 3.1 also includes an additional step, which is a conversion of the City's land use
data into socioeconomic data. The socioeconomic data is then used to calculate trip
generation. Both of these changes are required by regional modeling consistency •
guidelines, and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is responsible for
certifying the consistency of local models. Additionally, this updated model also includes
greater level Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) detail in key areas of the City where the question
of future development levels is in question, particularly the, area adjacent to John Wayne
Airport Greater detail has also been added in the Newport Coast/ Newport Ridge area,
due to its annexation into the City. Another difference in this traffic model from prior
versions is an improved methodology to conduct intersection analysis, which insures that
the traffic flow between related intersections is reconciled.
The December revision of this document contains more current data for areas just
outside Newport Beach, specifically: John Wayne Airport (SNA) and the University of
California at Irvine (UCI). Expansion of John Wayne airport has recently been approved
to include 10.8 million air passengers (MAP) for future conditions. Previously, the
forecast capacity was 8.4MAP (7.8 of which are included in the existing conditions).
Recent discussions with UCI have resulted in a modified representation of buildout
conditions for the campus that explicitly reflect a trip cap of approximately 150,0004rip- •
ends per day for General Plan Buildout conditions.
1.1 Basic Methodology and Assumptions
The NBTM follows the model structure recommended in the subarea modeling
guidelines, which is a "focused" modeling approach. The concept of a focused
model is to provide the greatest level of detail within the primary modeling or
study area, with the least detail for those parts of the model which are
geographically distant from the primary study area. The guidelines refine this
concept into a three-tier system, with tier 1 being the least detailed component
(used to account for regional traffic), tier 2 being the previous regional framework
(County; sub -regional traffic). And tier 3 being the primary study area (local
traffic).
The primary study area of the NBTM is shown on Exhibit A. The primary study
area of the NBTM is generally bounded by the Brookhurst Street/Santa Ana River
2 0
W
EXHIBIT A
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) PRIMARY STUDY AREA
v
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Califomia-01Z3Z:55
on the west, Adams Avenue/Baker Street/Campus Drive/SR-73 on the north, •
Crystal Cove State Park on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the south. The
primary model area includes the City as well as portion of Costa Mesa and Irvine.
The areas outside NB are included in the primary modeling area due to the
proximity of adjoining land uses and their interrelationship with Newport Beach
development resulting from .the structure of the road system.
NBTM 3.1 is highly dependent on the Orange County Transportation Analysis
Model, Version 3.1 (OCTAM3.1). The primary, modeling steps or processes used in
the development of NBTM 3.1 are:
• Land use to socioeconomic data (SED) conversion
• Trip generation and mode choice
• Trip distribution
• Time of day factoring
• Traffic assignment
• Post -assignment• data refinement processing (validation) •
NBTM relies on regional model estimates of trip generation, trip distribution, and
mode choice. The model accommodates changes in land use/socioeconomic and
roadway network characteristics in the following manner:
Trip Generation - Trip generation estimates are based on socioeconomic
data driven by the City's land use data. The number of
trips calculated from this source is then used to adjust
the regional projections to reflect local conditions.
Trip Distribution - Trip distribution estimates are based on distribution
patterns estimated by the regional; travel demand
model and incorporated into NBTM. The regional trip
distribution is adjusted to match local trip generation
using an industry -accepted approach known as the
Fratar model.
4 0
• Mode Choice - Mode choice is the method of transportation selected
by individuals traversing the region. These modes
include single and multi -occupant automobiles, buses,
trains, bicycles, pedestrian, etc. Mode Choice is
estimated by using regional model mode share
projections, which are incorporated into the subarea
model.
•
Traffic Assignment - Traffic is assigned to the roadway system on the basis
of travel time and cost. Tolls are explicitly included in
the traffic assignment process using the procedures
obtained from the regional travel demand model.
Traffic is assigned separately for the AM, mid -day, PM
and nighttime periods of the day, to allow to more
accurate representation of the effects of the congestion
on the choice of travel routes by drivers.
Post Model Refinements -The goal of volume forecast or post model refinement is
to utilize all available information to assure the model is
able to predict future traffic conditions. The NBTM
refinement procedure incorporates 2002 traffic count
data, 2002 model validation data, and future model
forecasts as inputs to this process.
• 5
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS •
This chapter of the executive summary describes existing 2002 shoulder (fall/spring)
season conditions the City of NewportBeach. Traffic Analysis Districts have been
established that group areas with similar characteristics. These districts help to .refine
estimates of where traffic originates, identify trip generation/distribution adjustments, and
make land use occupancy adjustments, all, to,refiect,the characteristics of a geographic
area. The Traffic Analysis Districts are shown on Exhibit B.
2.1 Existing Land Use Data
Land use data within the primary study area is a key input to the modeling process.
The initial land use data was provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff by the -City of
Newport Beach. Table 1 summarizes the existing 2002 land uses for the City of
Newport Beach, by land use type. These land uses were then converted to •
socioeconomic data as part of the initial modeling process.
2.2 2002 Socioeconomic- Data (SED)
City of Newport Beach SED that has been converted from the land use data in
Table 1 is summarized in Table 2. Conversion factors were established using
those from previous conversion efforts in the County. These were then refined to
more closely match citywide summary data. Occupancy factors and SED
conversion factors have been differentiated for the 'Balboa" area (districts 3, 9,
and 10 on Exhibit B). This differentiation was necessary because of inaccurate
initial model predictions compared to existing street counts. These differences
can be related to unique spring and fall trip generation, which is different from
other seasons. For instance, lower retail occupancy is experienced during the
"shoulder" (spring/fall) seasons represented by the NBTK
i
•
J
EXHIBIT B
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICTS
NEWPOirr BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, CaPifomia • 01232:56yium
TABLE 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O02 LAND USE SUMMARY'
29
1 Elements !Private School
4:399
it
1 STU
30
1 Junior/High School
4,765
1 STU
311
Culturaill-eaming Center
35.000
1 TSF
32
1 Library
78.840
1 TSF
'Excludes Newport Coast and other recently annexed areas.
Y Uses 8,12, and 14 are part of the old NBTAM model structure and are
not currently utilized In -the City land use dalasels.
a Units Abbreviations:
DU = Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
CRT = Court
STU = Students
U:\UcJobs\01232\Exoell[01232-03.xis]T 1
•
E
i
1_J
•
11lm1-34 Qlpa
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH' LAND USE BASED 2002
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY
VARIABLE
QUANTITY
Occupied Single Family Dwelling Units
13,842
Occupied Multi -Family Dwelling Units
20,409
TOTAL OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS
34 251
Group Quarters Population
661
Population
75,817
Employed Residents
44,379
Retail Employee
11,211
Service Employees
17,150
Other Employees
37,077
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
65,438
Elem/Hi h School Students
9,164
Includes data converted from land use only. Excludes Newport Coast and
recent annexation areas.
U:\UcJobs\01232\Excel\[01232-03.xis]T 2
W
2.3 2002 Trip Generation •
Trip generation has been estimated from socioeconomic data in the NBTM model
area. The trip generation factors have been derived from regional trip generation
estimates from the regional model (OCTAM 3.1). This methodology breaks down
traffic into trips produced (productions) and trips attracted (attractions). Table 3
summarizes the overall trip generation for 2002 conditions for the City of Newport
Beach. The overall trip generation for the City of Newport Beach is an estimated
689,850 daily vehicle trips,
2.3.1 Trip Purpose
NBTM trip generation data has been developed for the following 7 trip
purposes:
• Home -Work
• Home -Shop
• Home -Other •
• Home-Elementary/High School
• Home -University
• Other -Other
• Other -Work
The "Other" category includes social or entertainment related trips and
recreational trips.
2.4 2002 Mode Choice
Most mode choice (e.g., transit, etc.) issues are regional in nature, superseding
cities' boundaries. For this reason, the NBTM approach is to, incorporate mode
choice through data obtained from the regional mode choice model. This data
may be used directly for minor adjustments to account for future system
refinements, which would then be reflected in zonal vehicle trip generation
adjustments. Regional mode choice survey data directly relevant to Newport
10 0
•
•
TABLE 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O02 TRIP GENERATION
TRIP PURPOSE
PRODUCTIONS
I ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS-
I
PRODUCTIONS
/
ATTRACTIONS
Home Based Work
57,568
82,177
-24,6091
0.70
Home Based School
11,424
8,730
2,694
1.31
Home Based Other'
125,826
111 273
14.653
1.13
Work Based Other
52,483
57,381
-4,898
0'9111
Other- Other
92,237
90,749
1,488
1.02
TOTAL
339,5381
350,310
-10,7721
0.97
OVERALL TOTAL 689,850
1 Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
2 Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
U:\UcJobs\01232\Excel\[01232-03.xis]T 3
11
Beach is presented to facilitate such minor adjustments and to inform the •
decision -makers regarding the role of various modes of transportation to/from
and within the City of Newport Beach.
2.4.1 Home -Work Trip Mode Choice Data
The home -work trip mode choice data provided by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) to Urban Crossroads, Inc. included
mode choice data (travel method used) for home -work (either end in
Newport Beach) trips. The main mode choices fall Into the following
categories:
Drive alone
• Carpool
• Bus
• Railroad
• Ferry
• Taxi •
• Motorcycle
• Bike
• Walked
The mode choice data has been grouped into geographic areas. Within
Orange County, cities have been identified as adjacent to Newport Beach,
or generally located north of (North County) or south of (South County) the
City of Newport Beach. Adjacent cities include Costa Mesa, Huntington
Beach, Irvine, and Laguna Beach. The division between North County
and South County cities used for this analysis is the SR-55 Freeway.
Outside Orange County, cities/geographic areas have been grouped by
County:
Exhibits C and D depict the results of this analysis for Newport Beach
origin trips (residents) and Newport Beach destination trips (persons that
12 •
C�
12000)00
10000)00
e
as 6000 300
F
4000 300
2000 300
mm
EXHIBIT C
MODE CHOICE FOR WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTS
M DRIVE ALONE
02 PERSON CARPOOL
03+PERSON CARPOOL
❑ PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
M MOTOR -CYCLE
® NON -MOTORIZED
■ OTHER
Newport Adjacent North Orange South Orange Los Angeles Riverside San Ventura Outside
Beach Cities County County County County Bernardino County SCAG
County Region
Workplace
EXHIBIT D
MMODE CHOICE FOR HOME -WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH WORKERS
20000 )
■ DRIVE ALONE
18000 -) ®2 PERSON CARPOOL
■3+PERSON CARPOOL
16000 ) ❑PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
O MOTOR -CYCLE
14000 ] ■ NON -MOTORIZED
®OTHER
12000 ) ----- —
0• 10000 --
f-
8000 — — — — - - — - - - - — -- — — - - - ----
6000 — —. _ — — ---- -- —
4000 ---- -- -- ---
2000 _ .. - ---- -- -- — - --- —
0
Newport Adjacent North Orange South Orange Los Angeles Riverside San Ventura Outside
Beach Cities County County County County Bernardino County SCAG Region
County
Residence
IEWPORT BEACH NCH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport -Beach, California-01232:58 �Re�EF
• work in Newport Beach), respectively. The majority of trips that have one
or both trip ends in Newport Beach are drive -alone automobile trips. The
•
second -most used mode for trips with only one end in Newport Beach is 2-
person carpool, while the second -most popular mode for Home -Work trips
with both ends in the City is non -motorized. Generally, travel to the City of
Newport Beach via transit is most often by North Orange County residents
who work in the City of Newport Beach. The second highest percentage
of workers that utilize transit to travel to the City of Newport Beach is from
adjacent cities. Public transportation accounts for less than 2% of all
home -work travel to and from the City of Newport Beach from all other
geographic areas within the SCAG region. The percentage is actually
higher for locations outside the SCAG region, most likely associated with
the use of John Wayne Airport to travel to and from the City of Newport
Beach for more distant destinations.
2.5 2002 Trip Distribution
Survey data was provided by SCAG related to the origins and destinations of
trips made to and from the City of Newport Beach. The trip distribution data was
collected in the form of trip diaries in 1991. These trip diaries are an actual log
complied by individual motorists of their daily trip activities. The trip distribution
data was organized into six (6) trip purposes for trips ending or beginning in
Newport Beach and summarized by geographic area at the other end of the trip.
Exhibit E summarizes the geographic data by adjacent cities, north Orange
County, south Orange County, and each other county in Southern California
represented in the dataset for trips originating in Newport Beach. As might be
expected, the highest totals are for trips with both ends within the City of Newport
Beach, followed by trips with one end in an adjacent city.
As shown on Exhibit E, 52% of the trips surveyed are contained within Newport
Beach and 80% of the trips originating in Newport Beach are contained entirely in
0 15
EXHIBIT E
PURIRPOSE FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH BY DESTINATION
50,000
40.000,
N
30,000
f-
20,000
10,000
0
rm
Newport Adjacent Noilh South Los Angelos San
Beach Cities Orange Orange County Bernardino
County County County
Destination
Riverside Ventura
County County
OTHER -WORK
WORK AT-HOME
0 0 0
• Newport Beach and the adjacent cities. Exhibit F depicts the overall trip purposes
summary for trips beginning in Newport Beach. Most trips are Home -Other
(38%), with a high number of Home -Work (20%). The categories with the fewest
trips are Work at Home and Home -Shop. Exhibit G shows the City or County at
the other end of the trip for trips originating in Newport Beach. Areas closest to
Newport Beach have the most interactions with the City.
Exhibit H summarizes the geographic data by County (outside Orange County) or
portion of Orange County for trips destined for Newport Beach. The highest
totals are for trips with both ends in the City of Newport Beach (52%), followed by
trips from an adjacent city (28%). Exhibit I depicts the overall purposes for trips
ending in Newport Beach. Most trips are Home -Other (38%), followed by Home -
Work (22%). The fewest trips are Work at Home and Home -Shop. Exhibit J
shows the origin City or County for trips destined for Newport Beach. Areas
closest to Newport Beach have the most interactions with the City.
• 2.6 2002 Daily Traffic Conditions
•
The existing number of through lanes (lanes not designed to accommodate
turning movements only) within the primary study area are depicted on Exhibit K.
Daily traffic volume data for locations counted as part of this study effort were
collected in Spring/Fall of 2001/2002. Freeway data comes from the Caltrans
Publication, Traffic Volumes on State Highways. Exhibit L presents the daily
traffic volumes, which have been used to validate the NBTM. Daily volume is the
first level of check/verification to insure that the model is predicting traffic
accurately. Daily traffic count data has been collected and/or compiled for 64
locations in the City of Newport Beach. Additional daily volume data reported by
the California Department of Transportation has been incorporated into the
NBTM update work effort. The SR-55 Freeway north of the SR-73 Freeway
carries the highest daily traffic volume (approximately 155,000 vehicles per day)
in the NBTM primary modeling area. The arterial roadways carrying the highest
traffic volume in the NBTM primary modeling area are Coast Highway and
17
EXHIBIT F
PURPOSE OF TRIPS
ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH
WORK AT HOME
1%
11
1B
u
r•
u
EXHIBIT G
DESTINATIONS OF TRIPS
ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH
0
50,000
40,000
0
rL 30,000
f-
10,000
41
PURPOSE OF TRIPS
EXHIBIT H
FOR NEWPORT BEACH BY ORIGIN
Newport Adjacent North South Los Angeles San Riverside Ventura
Beach Cities Orange Orange County Bernardino County County
County County County
Origin
®HOME -OTHER
11 HOME -SHOP
urcr�
HOME
PORT BEACH ACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Califomla-0123262
0 0 •
EXHIBIT I
PURPOSES OF TRIPS
DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH
WORK AT HOME
1%
0 NEWPORT BEACH
SOUTH ORANGE
4%
LOSA
°5 OTHER
2%
EXHIBIT J
ORIGINS OF TRIPS
DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH
22
•
s s •
EXHIBIT K
NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING THROUGH LANES
N
EXHIBIT
EXISTING COUNT SHOULDER SEASON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AD1
54
LMEM :
10 -VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
6
\\$R 46 IB
B 29 �� 17 rnoe aaw
t
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Cal'rfomia • 01232:66
• MacArthur Boulevard. A daily traffic count of approximately 63,000 vehicles per
day was estimated on Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Bayside Drive
and on MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Avenue and Ford Road. Other
roadways carrying traffic volumes in excess of 50,000 vehicles per day (VPD)
include:
• Newport Boulevard (maximum volume of 53,000 VPD south of Coast
Highway).
• Coast Highway (53,000 VPD east of Newport Boulevard).
These links are highlighted because they represent the highest volume roadways in
Newport Beach. This does not automatically lead to deficiencies, but it will help to
identify areas where intersection deficiencies could lead to significant capacity
deficiencies.
Daily traffic counts (24 hour counts) were collected at 55 locations on the City's
• roadway system. This data was collected in 15 minute intervals. The areawide
volumes were then analyzed to determine the peak characteristics for the study
area. The results of this analysis show that 8.67% of daily traffic occurs during the
AM peak hour, and 10.63% of daily traffic occurs in the PM peak hour. The peak
hour (time of highest relative volume) was determined within typical peak periods
(6-9 AM and 3-7 PM). For the entire primary study area, the AM peak hour begins
at 7:30 AM, and the PM peak hour begins at 4:45 PM.
Individual locations have various peak hour start times. Within Newport Beach, the
total trips in the peak traffic hours is approximately 19% of total daily trips. This is
higher than the typical value of 16 percent that Urban Crossroads staff has
observed in other studies in Orange.
2.7 Peak Season Daily Traffic Volume Data
Peak season daily traffic volumes have been collected for select locations (primarily
in coastal areas) of the City of Newport Beach. Daily traffic volume counts were
25
collected over a one week period in August of 2003 for each selected roadway
segment For each roadway segment selected for summertime counts, the highest
typical weekday (Tuesday through Thursday) volume has been compared to the
shoulder season count volume at the same location. Table 4 contains the results of
this analysis. The only decrease in peak season volume from shoulder season
conditions occurs on MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road. All
other segments increase for summer conditions by at least 5% and as much as
75%. The locations with volume increases of more than thirty (30) percent are on
Newport Boulevard south of Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard east of 20th
Street on the ,Peninsula.
Review of the data clearly indicates that Newport Boulevard is the most popular
and heavily impacted access route to the beach for summertime traffic.
Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard appear to be the least affected routes,
with increases in traffic of between 5 and 10 percent. Newport Coast Drive
experiences a higher percentage increase in summertime traffic, but the
magnitude of the increase (approximately 3,400 vehicles per day) is very similar
to the increase on MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway. The traffic
Increases along Coast Highway itself are also less than the increases on routes
leading to the beach, suggesting that people are oriented towards traveling to the
beach/coast, rather than along it.
For one special case (Newport Boulevard in front of City Hall), daily traffic volume
data was collected every day for three weeks. Although the count collection
instrument was on the street for three weeks, a few days had to be removed from
the sample for various reasons (e.g. count tube was displaced). Daily volumes
range from approximately 35,000 to 50,000 with definite peaking trends on
weekend days.
Table 5 provides analysis of daily traffic volume patterns over the three weeks
collected on Newport Boulevard in front of City Hall. Exhibit M summarizes the
same information graphically. The average typical weekday volume is
26 0
TABLE 4
SUMMER TIME ADT COMPARISON
ID
ROAD NAME
ROADSEGMENT
COUNTS
IDELTAW
DIFFERENCE
ISHOULDERSEASON
ISUMMERTIME
3
Su eriorAv.
n/o Coast Hw.
23,535
30.533
6,998
29.73%
5
Newport BI.
s/o Coast Hw.
31,820
55,58
23,762
74.68%
39
Jamboree Rd.
n/o Coast Hw.
31,264
33,028
1,764
5.64%
50
MacArthur BI.
n/o San Joaquin Hills Rd.
54,320
41,820
-12,500
-23.01%
52
MacArthur BI.
n/o Coast Hw.
30,904
34,266
3,362
10.88%
65
'Rewport Coast Dr.
n/o Coast Hw.
12,223
15,63
3,415
27.94%
68
Balboa BI.
s/o Coast Hw.
19.227
21,906
2,679
13.93%
157
Coast Hw.
e/o Dover Dr.
62.526
70,303
7,777
12.44%
195
Coast Hw.
e/o New ort Coast Dr
35,375
41,917
6,542
18.49%
223
Coast Hw.
e/o Santa Ana River
46,000
48,513
2,513
5.46%
261
Balboa BI.
jefo 20th St.
17,4511
3U,4ztl
12,976
74.36%
TOTAL
1
1 364,6451
423,9331
59,288
16.26%
U:\UCJobs\01232\Excel\[01232-03.xls]T 4
•
27
TABLE 5
DAILY VOLUME VARIATION OVER THREE WEEKS
DAY
WEEK1
I WEEK2
I WEEK
1 WEEK4
I AVERAGE
Sunday
45,099
42,982
41,796
43,292
Monday
40,779
40,779
Tuesday
43,708
39,642
36,999
40,083
Wednesday
42,412
40,487
36,994
39,964
Thursday
43,248
40,301
41,775
Friday
47,683
45,437
44,077
45,732
Saturday
49,611
47,768
47,052
48,144
Average of Monday and Friday
44,494
verage Typical Weekday (Tu-Th)
40,461
,[Average Weekend Day
1 45,718
U:IUcJobs1012321Excell[01232-03.xls]T 5
r1
U
•
0
EXHIBIT M
SUMMER
DAILY TRAFFIC VARIATION
FOR
NEWPORT BOULEVARD
BETWEEN
32ND
AND FINLEY
ssm
w000
—_ -- — --
4WW
n
a
—
40000
O Ci
O
N
h
m
r
4�Y
N
R N
%tuu
N- tl
FI N
.a
a
.3�qi`-
T
N
W
m wvs
3
W N
0ECJb
i PJ
T QQT
j
6 T
33
-
3
DAY
r
p�
O
3
3
NE NPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY Newport Beach
Califomia-01232.74
aeulf67t6><
approximately 40,500 vehicles per day (vpd). The Monday volume is very near this •
same volume, but traffic is more evenly spread throughout the day. Saturday has
the highest average volume with 48,144 vpd. The average. Friday volume is
approximately 2,500 vpd greater than the average Sunday volume.
2.8 Daily Roadway Segment Analysis
Daily roadway segment capacities are included in Table 6. The ratio of daily
roadway segment volumes to daily planning level capacities provides a measure of
the roadway segment level of service. Although the City of Newport Beach does
not control conditions on local area freeways, freeway mainline and ramp v/c ratios
are presented for informational purposes. Volume/Capacity (v/c) Ratios for existing
conditions are shown on Exhibit N QUI, Roadway segments with We
ratios greater than 0.90 are: ER
2.9 2002 Traffic Source Analysis •
The General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) requested that the traffic study
provide specific study of individual trip patterns to answer the question of how
many trips are going through Newport Beach, without starting or stopping inside
the City. This was done in a study that is characterized as 'Traffic Source
Analysis." For this study the consultant essentially followed cars as they
journeyed through the City. Traffic destinations for three locations were studied:
• Northbound Coast Highway, south of Newport Coast Drive
• Southbound Coast Highway, south of the Santa Ana River
• Southbound MacArthur Boulevard, north of Bonita Canyon Drive
Beginning at each of the three locations, 100 cars were followed until they left the
arterial system or the City of Newport Beach. This sample size provides a
confidence interval of +/-10%. For each vehicle followed, the data includes start
time (when the vehicle was at one of the above destinations), end
30 6
r1
L_J
r 1
L_J
•
TABLE 6
ROADWAY SEGMENT CAPACITIES
CLASSIFICATION
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CURB TO CURB
WIDTH
# OF LANES
MEDIAN WIDTH
APPROXIMATE
DAILY CAPACITY
8 Lane Divided
158
Variable
8
14-18
60-68 000
MaorAu mented
Variable
Variable
6-8
Variable
52-58,000
Major
128-134
106-114
6
14-18
45-51 000
Prima Au mented
Variable
Variable
4-6
Variable
35-40000
Prima
104-108
84
4
16-20
30 34 000
Secondary
84
64
4
0
20-23 000
Commuter
60-70
1 40-50
2
0
7-10000
Couplets:
Secondary couplet- 2 lanes for each leg
Primary couplet- 3 lanes for each leg
Major couplet - 4 lanes for each leg
U:1UcJobs1012321Fxcel%[01232-03.xis]T 6
31
EXHIBIT'N
EXISTING DAILY VOLUME TO CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS •
(To be Provided)
32 0
• time (when the vehicle left the City or the arterial system), destination
(termination of trip or crossing a cordon location), vehicle type (brief description
of the vehicle), and date. Analysts were directed to select vehicles from each
F1
LJ
•
lane, and a variety of vehicle types.
As requested by City of Newport Beach staff, data was primarily collected during
the peak periods (from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:30 to 6:30 PM). At least 30%
of samples were taken within each of the AM and PM peak periods for each of
the three (3) traffic source locations.
The City of Newport Beach has been divided into fourteen (14) traffic analysis
districts, as previously shown on Exhibit B. For the purpose of this analysis,
districts 3 and 10 have been combined. Exhibit O shows through trip
destinations (cordon locations, depicted as letters on roadways exiting the City).
Once a vehicle has left the City of Newport Beach, it is considered an external
trip and is not further studied.
Exhibit P graphically depicts generalized trip distribution patterns for vehicles
traveling northbound on Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive. Internal
traffic (with destinations in the City of Newport Beach) accounts for 64% of the
vehicles studied. This percentage is slightly lower in the AM peak (60%) and
higher in both the PM peak and off peak time frames. The top three traffic
districts attracting vehicles from this location are 13, 8, and 9. District 13 roughly
corresponds to Newport Coast West/ Corona Del Mar. District 8 is approximately
Newport Center. District 9 is Bayside/Balboa Island.
Through traffic from northbound Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive
travels primarily to cordons A, W, and U. Each of these cordons was the
destination of more than 5 of the 100 vehicles followed. Cordon A is Coast
Highway at the Santa Ana River and received seven percent (7%) of the vehicles
studied. Cordon W is Newport Coast Drive northeast of the SR-73 freeway and
was the destination of seven percent (7%) of vehicles involved. Cordon U (the
33
W
TRAFFIC SURVEY 'RESULTS
SOUTH
NEWPOBi BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY. Newport Beach Califomia-01232:68
EXHIBIT a
FOR NB COAST HIGHWAY
OF NEWPORT COAST DR.
C
•
•
W
Ln
EXHIBIT P
TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB COAST HIGHWAY
SOUTH OF SANTA ANA RIVER
n -uuI mM, nomuen
destination of six percent (6%) of the vehicles followed)' is Bison Avenue .
northeast of the SR-73 freeway (towards University of California, Irvine).
Survey results for southbound Coast Highway south of the Santa Ana River are
summarized on. Exhibit Q. Internal (City of Newport Beach) traffic comprises
66% of the 100 trips analyzed. In the off-peak time frame; this percentage is
much lower, but the off-peak sample size is small (8 vehicles). Primary
destinations include traffic analysis districts 2, 8, 3/10, and 9. District 2 is
Mariner's Mile/Newport Heights. Newport Center is district 8. District 3/10 is
Newport Bay and the Balboa Peninsula, and district 9 is Bayside/Balboa Island.
Through traffic from the starting point on Coast Highway south of the Santa Ana
River primarily exits the City of Newport Beach either at cordon C (Superior
Boulevard north of 15th Street), or at cordon Y (Coast Highway south of Newport
Coast Drive). Cordon C captured eleven percent (11%) of traffic studied, while
cordon Y was the destination of seven percent (7%) of vehicles followed. All
other cordons had fewer than 5 of the 100 vehicles studied leaving. •
Exhibit R shows generalized trip distribution patterns for vehicles studied on
southbound MacArthur Boulevard north of Bonita Canyon Drive. Almost 90% of
traffic on this segment remains in the City of Newport Beach. Major destinations
include districts 8, 13, 9, and 12. District 8 (Newport Center) was the destination
of 37 vehicles. 32 total vehicles ended their trips in districts 13 and 9 (Newport
Coast West/Corona Del Mar and Bayside/Balboa Island, respectively). District
12 is Harbor View Hills/Newport Ridge (the destihatiomof 11 vehicles).
During the peak hours, 11 of the 100 vehicles did travel through the City. Their
primary cordon destination was Y (Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive)
to which seven percent (7%) of vehicles traveled.
None of the through -corridors studied are unusually impacted by through traffic.
The survey results indicate that less than 10% of the traffic on the corridors
36 0
EXHIBIT Q
TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB MACARTHUR BLVD,
NORTH OF BONITA CANYON DR.
A-YUIKMI NUMUM
EXHIBIT R
INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS
8
• surveyed is regional through -traffic. However, as might be expected, through -
traffic is greater on east west corridors such as Coast Highway, than on north -
south routes, because the Pacific Ocean is a barrier to further through traffic
movement.
•
2.10 2002 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Peak period and hour traffic count data has been obtained from a variety of
sources. Obtaining 2001/2002 data has been an emphasis of the existing
conditions effort. Peak period and hour turning movement traffic volume data have
been compiled or counted at a total of 62 intersections throughout the City of
Newport Beach, as shown on Exhibit S. These locations were selected for analysis
by City staff because of their locations along key travel corridors within the
community. Additionally, it is important to note that while the overall daily volume
as compared to capacity is an important indicator of transportation system function,
intersection capacity can sometimes play a greater role when it comes to
constraints on the system.
Level of Service (LOS) is defined and described as follows:
LOS A = 0.00 - 0.60 ICU: Low volumes, high speeds; speed not restricted by
other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles
waiting through more than one cycle.
LOS B = 0.61— 0.70 ICU: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other
traffic; between one and ten percent of signal cycles
have one or more vehicles which wait through more
than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods.
LOS C = 0.71 — 0.80: Operating speeds and maneuverability closely
controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent
of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which
wait through more than one signal cycle during peak
traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard.
39
EXHIBIT S
INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS
CD
• LOS D = 0.81 — 0.90: Tolerable operation speeds; between 31 and 70
percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one signal cycle during
peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in
urban areas.
LOS E = 0.91-1.00: Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an intersection
can accommodate; restricted speeds; between 71 and
100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more
vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle
during peak traffic periods.
The data collected/compiled was input into a turning movement analysis database.
For each location, inbound and outbound volumes were calculated, by each 'leg" or
intersection approach.
The number of lanes and their configuration has been collected at all 62 existing
. intersections and is used to calculate existing (2002) intersection capacity utilization
values (ICUs). Table 7 summarizes the 2002 ICUs based on the AM and PM peak
hour intersection turning movement volumes and the intersection configuration.
The following 7 intersections currently experience deficient (LOS "E" or worse)
peak hour operations under existing (2002) conditions:
• Riverside Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW)
• Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street (N) (EW)
• Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW)
• Jamboree Road (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW)
• Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW)
Exhibit T depicts the existing deficiencies graphically.
0 41
TABLET •
NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
INTERSECTION MS & EW)
AM PEAK HOUR
I PM PEAK
HOUR
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
0.66
B
0.67
B
3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84
D
0.90
D
4. Newport BI. & Hos ital'Rd,
0.54
A
0.70
B
5. Newport BI. & Via Lido
0.41
A
0,37
A
6. New ort BI. & 32nd St.
0.73
C
0.78
C
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84
D
0.93
E
8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.80
C
0.67
B
9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.
0.61
B
0.85
D
10. MacArthur BI. & Birch,St.
0.49
A
0.66
B
11. Von Kerman Av. & Campus Dr.
0:55
A
0.79
C
12. MacArthur BI. & Von Kerman Av.
0.46
A
0.53
A
13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr.
0.74
C
0.85
D
14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
0.551
A
0.60
A
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N
0.77
C
0.94
E
16. Birch St. & Bristol St. N
0.66
B
0.61
B
17. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St. S
0.72
C
0.58
A
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. S
0.46
A
0.44
A
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
0.70
B
0.94
E
20. Irvine Av. & University Dr.
0.82
D
0.89
D
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.66
B
0.72
C
22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.57
A
0.60
A
23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.72
C
0.64
B
24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr.
0.57
A
0.77
C
25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr.
0.38
A
0.48
A
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.55
A
0.57
A
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.70
B
0.74
C
28. Ba side Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.69
B
0.70
B
29. MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.
0.88
D
0.91
E
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N
0.55
A
0.59
A
31. Bayview PI. & Bristol St. S
0.48
A
0.56
A
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S
0.75
C
0.72
C
33. Jamboree Rd. & Ba view Wy.
0.41
A
0.57
A
34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr.
0.60
A
0.64
B
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av.
0.45
A
0.51
A
36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd.
0.69
B
0.65
B
37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.80
C
1.00
1
•
• TABLE 7
NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
0
INTERSECTION NS & E
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr.
0.47
A
0.63
B
39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw.
0.68
B
0.74
C
40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.36
A
0.36
A
41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.32
A
0.62
A
42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.40
A
0.52
A
44. Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr.
0.33
A
0.72
C
45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw.
0.58
A
0.66
B
46. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.31
A
0.37
A
47. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.26
A
0.17
A
48. MacArthur BI. & Bison Av.
0.63
B
0.60
A
49. MacArthur BI. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.71
C
0.90
D
50. MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.64
B
0.93
E
51. MacArthur BI. & San Miguel Dr.
0.561
A
0.65
B
52. MacArthur BI. & Coast Hw.
0.60
A
0.71
C
53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.55
A
0.43
A
54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.30
A
0.41
A
55. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr.
0.28
A
0.31
A
56. San Miguel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.44
A
0.54
A
57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw.
0.99
E
0.69
B
58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.31
A
0.35
A
59. Marguerite Av. & Coast Hw.
0.83
D
0.82
D
60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.44
A
0.30
A
61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw.
0.61
B
0.65
B
62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Rams
0.45
A
0.31
A
64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.37
A
0.29
A
65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw. 1
0.471
A
0.50
A
Avera a
All Locations
0.681
Al0.631
B
0 U:\UcJobs\01232\Excel\[01232-03.xis]T 7
EXHIBIT T
EXISTING INTERSECTION DEFICIENCIES
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFICSTUDY, Newport Beach, Califomia-01232:41 rev.12/1/03
• 3.0 CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This chapter presents currently adopted General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions. This
represents the amount of traffic which can be predicted if all entitlement expressed in
the current Land Use Element, and all the improvements identified in the Circulation
Element, were fully constructed. It also includes regional growth through the year 2025.
Data are compared to existing conditions to quantify growth.
3.1 General Plan Buildout Land Use Data
The General Plan Buildout land use data was provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc.
staff by the City of Newport Beach. Table 8 summarizes the overall General Plan
Buildout land uses for the City of Newport Beach. An overall comparison to
existing (2002) land use is also shown in Table 8. Land uses generally increase
for the City General Plan Buildout Scenario. Areas where the most anticipated
intensification in development are in the older, on -street commercial districts,
such as Mariners' Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, the Campus/Birch tract (near
• John Wayne Airport), etc. The single most significant residential growth area is
Newport Coast/Ridge, although there are notable residential increases predicted
for older residential neighborhoods like Corona del Mar, Lido Isle, and the Balboa
Peninsula. There is only one significant undeveloped property in the City's
planning area, Banning Ranch in western Newport Beach. Reductions in specific
uses (e.g., mobile homes, movie theaters) are caused by redevelopment in the
City.
3.2 General Plan Buildout Socioeconomic Data (SED)
General Plan buildout SED that has been converted from land use is
summarized in Table 9. Table 9 also contains a comparison of General Plan
Buildout SED to existing (2002) SED for the City of Newport Beach.
The total number of dwelling units are projected to increase by 5,452 units (16%)
per the currently adopted General Plan. For total employment, an increase of
13,578 employees (21%) is included in the currently adopted General Plan.
0 45
TABLES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
LAND USE SUMMARY
NBTM
CODE'
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
2002
QUANTITY
BUILDOUT
QUANTITY
GROWTH
%GROWTH
1
Low Density Residential
DU
14 841
15,213
372
2.51%
2
Medium Density Residential
DU
12,939
17,723
4,784
36.97%
3
Apartment
DU
7622
8468
846
11.10%
4
Elderly Residential
DU
348
348
0100%
5
Mobile Home
DU
894
749
-145
-16.22%
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS
DU
36,644
42,501
6.867
16.98%
6
Motel
ROOM
210
256
46
21.90%
7
Hotel
ROOM
2,745
3,270
525:
19.13%
9
Regional Commercial
TSF
1,259.000
1,633.850
374.850
29.77%
10
General Commercial
TSF
2,926.160
3,692.980
766:820
26.21%
11
Commercial/Recreation
ACRE
5.100
5.100
0.00%
13
Restaurant
TSF
640.520
859.800
219.280
34.25%
15
Fast Food Restaurant
TSF
78.031
94.540
16.509
21.169
16
Auto Dealer/Sales
TSF
288.320
323.290
34.970
12.13%
171
Yacht Club
TSF
54.580
73.060
18.480
33.86%
18
Health Club
TSF
63.500
108.070'
44.570
70.19%
19
Tennis Club
CRT
60
60
0.00%
20
Marina
SLIP
1055
1055
0.00%
21
Theater
SEAT
5489
5475
-14
-0.26%
22
Newport Dunes
ACRE
64.00
64.00
0.00%
23
General Office
TSF
10 900.190
12153A73
1,251283
11.50%
24
Medical Office
TSF
761.459
895.420
133.961
17.59%
25
Research & Develo ment
TSF
327.409
809.330
461.921
147.19%
26
Industrial
TSF
1,042.070
1060.762
18.692
1.79°%
27
MiniStora elWarehouse
TSF
199.750
199.750
-
0.00%
28
Pre-school/Day Care
TSF
55.820
1 56.770
0.950
1.70%
29
Elementary/Private School
STU
4,399
4,455
56
1.27%
30
Junior/High School
STU
4,765
4,765
0.00%
31
Cultural/l.daming Center
TSF
35,000'
40.000
5.000
14.29%
32
Library
TSF
78.840
78.840
0.00%
33
Post Office
TSF
53.700
73.700
20.000
37.24%
34
Hospital
BED
351
1 265
914
260.40%
35
Nursin /Conv. Home
BEDS
661
661
0.00%
36
Church
TSF
377.760
467.210
89.450
23.680y16
37
Youth Ctr./Service
TSF
149.560
166.310
16.750
11,20%
38
Park
ACRE
111970
94.910
-19.060
-16.72%
39
Regional Park
ACRE
45.910
45.910
N/A
40
Golf Course
ACRE
305.3-30
298.330
-7.000
-2.29%
Uses 8, 12, and 14 are part of the old NBTAM model structure and are not currently utilized in
the City land use datasels.
2•Units Abbreviations:
DU '= Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
CRT = Court
STU = Students
0
U:IUcJobs1012321ExmllOI232.03.xlsjTe 0
46
•
0
11
TABLE 9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH' LAND USE BASED
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY/COMPARISON
VARIABLE
2002
QUANTITY
1 BUILDOUT
QUANTITY
GROWTH
%GROWTH
Occupied Single Family Dwelling Units
13,842
14,250
408
3%
Occupied Multi-Farn ly Dwelling Units
20,409
25,453
5,044
25%
TOTAL OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS
34,261
39,703
5,462
16%
Group Quarters Population
661
661
0
0%
Population
75,817
87,886
12,069
16%
Employed Residents
44,379
51,268
6,889
16%
Retail Employees
11,211
13,552
2,341
21%
Service Employees
17,150
21,137
3,987
23%
Other Employees
37,077
44,327
7,250
20%
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
65,438
79,016
13,678
21%
Elem/Hi h School Students
9,164
9,220
56
1%
1 Includes date
U:\UcJobs1012321
3.3 Build'out Trip Generation
•
Table 10 summarizes the overall trip generation for General Plan Buildout
conditions for the City of Newport Beach. The overall trip generation for the City
of Newport Beach is an estimated 860,258 daily vehicle trips. Table 11
compares General Plan Buildout trip generation to existing. Total trip generation
increases by approximately 170,000 daily trips over existing (or 25%).
Regionally, total trip generation -(Post 2025) Is projected to increase by 33%.
3.4 Buildout Daily Traffic Conditions
Exhibit U shows General Plan Buildout through lanes on Newport Beach
roadways. This exhibit is based on information provided by City of Newport
Beach staff and the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. The extension
of the SR-55 Freeway south of 17th Street is part of the assumed circulation
system as is the widening of Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile, the 191'
Street Bridge over the Santa Ana River, and the circulation system Master Plan •
for the Banning Ranch area. Additionally, tolls have been retained on toll roads
to provide a conservative worst -case scenario. Regionally, total vehicle miles of
travel are projected to increase by 45%, reflecting the tendency for growth to
occur in outlying areas of the region.
Exhibit V summarizes the NBTM 3.1 refined General Plan Buildout daily traffic
volumes throughout the City of Newport Beach. The highest daily traffic volume
increase occurs on Coast Highway. Between Bayside Drive and Newport
Boulevard, traffic increases by 15,000 or more vehicles per day (VPD). This
increase is caused partly by land use increases in the Balboa area. The capacity
increase of 50% (4 lanes to 6 lanes) on Coast Highway west of Dover Drive makes
the route more desirable and also contributes to the volume increase. Finally, the
SR-55 Freeway extension makes this section of Coast Highway more desirable to
through traffic. This is reflected by the less substantial increase in volume on Coast
Highway west of Newport Boulevard (9,000 VPD increase). Volumes on Coast
M
• TABLE 10
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRIP GENERATION
TRIP PURPOSE
PRODUCTIONS
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS -
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS /
ATTRACTIONS
Home Based Work
70,469
100,684
-30 215
0.70
Home Based School
14,125
8,845
5,280
1.60
Home Based Othee
167,202
136,553
30,649
1.22
Work Based Other
64,755
70,186
-5,431
0.92
Other- Other
114,557
112,882
1,675
1.01
TOTAL
431,1081
429,1601
1,9681
1.00
OVERALL TOTAL 860,258
1 Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
2 Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
U:IUcJobs1012321Excell[01232-03.x1s]T 10
49
TABLE 11 •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
TRIP PURPOSE
DAILY TRIP ENDS
GROWTH
PERCENT
GROWTH
EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN,
BUILDOUT
Home Based Work Productions
57,568
70 469
12 901
22.41
Home Based Work Attractions
82,177
100 684
18,507
22.52%
Home Based School Production's
11,424
14,125
2,701
23.64%
Home Based School Attractions
8,730
8,846
115
1.32%
Home Based Other Productions2
125,826
167,202
41,376
32.88%
Home Based Other Attractions
111,273
136,553
25,280
22.72%
or Based Other Productions
52 483
64,755
12,272
23.38%
Work Based Other Attractions
57,381
70,186
12,805
22.32%
Other -Other Productions
92,237
114.5571
22,3201
24.20%
Other - Other Attractions
90,7491
112,8821
22,133
24.39%
OTAL PRODUCTIONS
339,538
431,108
91,570
26.97%
OTALATTRACTIONS
1 350,3101
429.1501
78,8401
22.51%
OVERALL TOTAL
1 689,8481
860,2581
170,410
24.70%
1 Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
2 Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
U:\UcJobs101232,16ccer401232-03.xlsjT 11
•
0
EXHIBIT U
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT THROUGH LANES
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, Califomia-01232:72 rev.12/02/03 Immm
EXHIBIT V
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE
DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
38 19 61
31 1 L 24
4 8 ' 7
9
6
185
6
$ C54
132
133
44 35 i
28 27wnnm 96 J
JZ 22 21 31 58
J 35 g'-� i
118
16 a 47 6
17 ovn
4
�
7
1
e
wa v
10 d
-17
10
72
N
1
45
N
� >
C 3
2758
p B
12 m
5
f
it
10 5 6
25 18 2 12 3
4 �.0 22
D°'18
1
56
2
E 11 14 37
2 25 6
18
ye>o-
m
16
24 g
11 `�
y�
8
21
37
� � 11
pg
19 17 10 g
7
'
2
m
wssin+F 51 42 45 1
%
22 10 17 24 67
14
�
wS
42 2 35 45
g
31 13
13
U
2
49
``
.'18 i
`Y`%7
>9
/
1
13
1
LEGEND:
\ 7` ti
1 3 1
,m
20 - VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
`
g,�
5
9
21
5
43
8
PACIFIC
�1
OCEAN
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY,
Newport Beach, Callfomia-01232-73 rev.12/02/03
40
0
0
• Highway throughout the study area generally increase, with the one exception
being west of 15th Street. The new Santa Ana River crossing of 19th Street draws
traffic away from Coast Highway. Volumes on Coast Highway in other areas
generally increase by 7,000-11,000 VPD.
Traffic volumes on Newport Boulevard increase substantially in General Plan
buildout conditions. Land use increases in the coastal areas account for some of
the increase. Traffic is also drawn to Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport
Beach because of the SR-55 freeway extension. However, changes to the planned
circulation system Master Plan and/or the permitted level of intensification of land
uses could lead to different results in the long term.
Land use increases in the Newport Coast area cause Newport Coast Drive to have
large volume increases that grow approaching the SR-73 tollway. Increased traffic
from Bonita Canyon and Harbor View Hills/Newport Ridge cause 'volumes on
Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Bonita Canyon Drive to go up.
• Increased capacity on Irvine Avenue south of Bristol Street draws traffic to Campus
Drive/Irvine Avenue.
3.5 Daily Roadway Segment Analysis
The ratio of daily roadway segment volumes to daily planning level capacities
provides a measure of the roadway segment service. Volume/Capacity (v/c) Ratios
for existing conditions are shown on Exhibit W (to be provided). Roadway
segments with v/c ratios greater than 0.90 are:
3.6 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Operations
The final data required to support the Buildout Scenario of the NBTM update
• process was the intersection configuration of the 63 intersections selected for
53
EXHIBIT W
CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN VOLUME
TO CAPACITY (VIC) RATIOS
(To be Provided)
54
•
• analysis. This data was provided by City staff and was used to calculate currently
adopted General Plan Buildout intersection capacity utilization values (ICUs) at all
63 analysis intersections. Table 12 summarizes the General Plan Buildout ICUs
based on the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and
the intersection geometric data.
As shown in Table 12, ICU values generally increase in the General Plan buildout
conditions. The exceptions occur where new parallel facilities are available, or
where an increase in lanes results in increased capacity. The 19 intersections with
ICU values greater than 0.90 (LOS "E" or worse) in either peak period are:
• Bluff Road (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Superior Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Newport Boulevard (NS)/Hospital Road (EW) (PM)
• Riverside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (PM)
• • Von Karman Avenue (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (PM)
•
• Jamboree Road (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (AM/PM)
• Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (AM/PM)
• Birch Street (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (AM)
• Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue (NS)/Bristol Street South (EW) (AM)
• Irvine Avenue (NS)/University Avenue (EW) (AM/PM)
• Bayside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) (AM/PM)
• Jamboree Road (NS)/Bristol Street South (EW) (AM)
• Jamboree Road (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM)
• Goldenrod (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Marguerite (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM/PM)
55
TABLE 12
NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY •
INTERSECTION NS/
AM
PEAK HOUR
PM
PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
DELTA
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
DELTA
1. Bluff Rd. & Coast Hw.
DNE'
1.01
1.01
DNE
0.76
0.76
2. Su riorAv. & Placentia Av.
0.66
0.65
-0.01
0.67
0.55
-0.12
3. Superior Av. & Coast Elm
0.84
1.01
0.17
0.90
0.80
-0.10
4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd.
0.54
0.87
0.331
0.70
0.93
0.23
5. Newport BI. & ViaLido
0.41
0.52
0.11
0.37
0.44
0.07
6. Newport Bl. & 32nd St.
0.73
0.67
-0.06
0.78
0.76
.0.02
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
0.841
0.83
-0.01
0.931
1.12
0.19
S. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.80
0.76
-0.04
0.67
0.87
0.20
9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.
0.61
0.72
0.11
0.85
1.21
0.36
10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St.
0.49
0.71
0.22
0.66
0.80
0.14
11. Von Karman Av. & Cam us Dr.
0:55
0.67
0.12
0.79
0.94
0.15
12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av.
0.46
0.54
0.08
0.53
0.64
0.11
13. Jamboree Rd. & Cam us Dr.
0.74
0.931
0.19
0.85
1.23
0.38
14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
0.55
0.90
0.351
0.601
0.89
0.29
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St.
0.77
0.97
0.20
0.94
1.09
0.15
16. Birch St. &Bristol St.
0.66
0.93
0.27
0.61
031
0.10
17. Campus DrArvine Av. & Bristol St. S
0.72
0.91
0.19
0.58
0.76
0.18
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. S
0.46
0.52
0.06
0.44
0.53
0.09
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
0.70
0.68
-0.02
0.94
0.90
-0.04
20. Irvine Av. & University Dr.
0.82
1.15
0.33
0.89
1'.06
0.47
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.66
0.58
-0.08
0.721
0.62
-0.10
22.Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.57
0.51
-0.06
0.60
0.55
-0.05
23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.72
0.75
0.03
0.64
0.65
0.01
24.Irvine Av. & WestcliffDr.
0.57
0.49
-0.08
0.77
0.74
-0.03
25. Dover Dr. & WestclilfDr.
0.38
0.26
-0.12
0.48
0.48
0.00
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.55
0.47
-0.08
0.57
0.55
.0.02
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.701
0.71
0.01
0.74
0.74
0.00
28. Ba side Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.69
0.85
0.16
0.701
0.94
0.24
29. MacArthur BI. & Jambome Rd.
0.88
0.97
0.09
0.91
0.98
0.07
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St
0.55
0.07
.0.48
0.59
0.02
-0.57.
31. Bayview PI. & Bristol St. S
0.48
0.61
0.13
0.56
0.63
0.07'
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.72
0.83
0.11
33. Jamboree Rd. & Ba view W .
0AII
0.45
0.04
0.57
0.68
0.11
34. Jamboree Rd. & EastbluffDr. [University Dr.
0.60
0.58
.0.02
0.64
0.61
-0.03
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av.
0.45
0.46
0.011
0.511
0.54
0.03
36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff DrJFord Rd.
0.69
0.741
0.051
0.651
0.70
0.05
37. Jambome Rd. & San Joaquin Hills R, .
0.80
0.891
0.091
1.001
1.08
0.08
•
0
TABLE 12
• NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY
•
0
INTERSECTION NS/
AM
PEAK HOUR
I PM
PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
DELTA
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
DELTA
38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr.
0.47
0.52
0.05
0.631
0.69
0.06
39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw.
0.68
0.84
0.16
0.741
0.87
0.13
40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.36
0.40
0.04
0.36
0.38
0.02
41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.32
0.34
0.02
0.52
0.66
0.14
42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.40
0.51
0.11
0.52
0.62
0.10
44. Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr.
0.33
0.35
0.02
0.72
0.77
0.05
45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw.
0.581
0.76
0.181
0.66
0.77
0.11
46. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.31
0.46
0.15
0.37
0.56
0.19
47. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.26
0.40
0.14
0.171
0.29
0.12
48. MacArthur BI. & Bison Av.
0.63
0.77
0.14
0.60
0.77
0.17
49. MacArhtur BI. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.71
0.76
0.05
0.90
1.07
0.17
50. MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.64
0.71
0.07
0.93
0.96
0.03
51. MacArthur BI. & San Miguel Dr.
0.56
0.55
-0.01
0.65
0.70
0.05
52. MacArthur BI. & Coast Hw.
0.60
0.72
0.121
0.71
0.81
0.10
53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.55
0.62
0.07
0.43
0.47
0.04
54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.30
0.44
0.14
0.411
0.56
0.15
55. San Miguel Dr. & Spyglass Hilt Rd.
0.28
0.31
0.03
0.31
0.39
0.08
56. San Joaquin Hills Rd. & San Miguel Dr.
0.44
0.50
0.06
0.54
0.65
0.11
57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw.
0.99
1.08
0.09
0.69
0.76
0.07
58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.31
0.37
0.06
0.35
0.50
0.15
59.Marerite Av. & Coast Hw.
0.83
0.92
0.09
0.82
0.95
0.13
60. §pyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.44
0.57
0.13
0.30
0.44
0.14
61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw.
0.61
0.71
0.101
0.651
0.75
' 0.10
62. New ort Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Rams
0.45
0.52
0.07
0.31
0.36
0.05
64. Ne ort Coast Dr. &San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.37
0.60
0.231
0.29
0.46
0.17
65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw. 1
0.471
0.59
0.121
0.501
0.61
0.11
rDNE
U:1Uc
The intersections with future buildout (Currently Adopted General Plan) ICU values that •
exceed 0.90 are depicted graphically on Exhibit X. It is important to note that for both
existing and build -out conditions, Intersection Capacity Utilization ratio calculations
reflect the function of intersections for a very limited amount of time throughout the day
(the AM and PM peak hours, or 2 of the 24 hour time period, and only for weekdays).
Within the current data limitations, we are unable to provide ICU calculations either as
an average ICU, or for other, non -peak hours.
58
•
•
EXHIBIT X
CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY, Newport Beach, CalRomia-01232:42 rev.12/02/03 �
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK •
60 •
Newport Beach General Plan Update
PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCHEDULE
Revised December 2, 2003
• GPAC meetings are scheduled on Mondays preceding City Council meetings (second and
fourth Tuesdays).
•
0
Date
Topic
2003
IDec 8
Traffic -Summer Conditions
Dec 22
" , ',' ett ' i'"'M`,'
TBD (Lucy Dunn, affordable housing, mixed use)
2004
Jan 12
Jan 26
TBD (transportation options/innovation?)
Feb 9
TBD
Feb 23
1 Data Review I
Mar 8
Data Review II
Mar 22
Planning Issues
Apr 12
Land Use Determinants -Guiding Principles I: Economic Development,
Hotels Motels Harbor Development
Apr 26
Land Use Determinants -Guiding Principles II: Affordable Housing,
Conservation Hazards
May 10
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives I (Banning Ranch, John Wayne
Airport Area, Mariners Mile, Fashion Island/Newport Center)
May 24
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives II (Banning Ranch, John Wayne
Airport Area, Mariners Mile, Fashion Island/Newport Center)
Jun 7
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives III (Banning Ranch, John
Wa ner Airport Area, Corona del Mar, West Newport Residential
Jun 21
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives IV (Lido Marina/Civic Center
Area, West Newport Industrial, Central Balboa, Old Newport Boulevard)
Jul 12
Sub -Committees: Land Use Alternatives V (Cannery Village/McFadden
Square, West Newport Industrial, Newport Shores, Santa Ana Heights)
Jul 26
Full Committee Review of Land Use Alternatives
Auq 9
IT13D
Auq 23 ITBD
Sep 13
TBD
Sep 27
Alternatives Impacts
Oct 11
Preferred Plan I
Oct 25
Preferred Plan II
Nov 8
Sub -Committees: Conservation & Natural Public Safety, Historic Resource;
Nov 22
Sub -Committees: Conservation & Natural Public Safety 11
Dec 13
Sub -Committees: Arts & Cultural Harbor & Ba4 Recreation & Open Space
Dec 27
b"Me'etin' ;wa 'i;,;, ...�P, V .9 ;,r .,.. �M
Sub -Committees: Land Use Recreation & Open Space
2005
Jan 10
Jan 24
Sub -Committees: Land Use Circulation Economic Strategic Plan
Feb 7
Sub -Committees: Land Use Circulation Growth Management
Feb 21
Sub -Committees: Circulation
•
•
0
Newport Beach General Plan Update
PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE SCHEDULE
Revised December 2, 2003
Mar 7
Sub -Committees: Housing, Noise
Mar 21
TBD
A r 11
Full Committee Review of Sub -Committee Input
Apr 25
Implementation I
Mav 9
Implementation II
Ma 23
TBD
Draft GP and EIR Review
A8
ugA22
1 Draft GP and EIR Review
0
0
JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D.
2221 East 16a` Street Home Phone (949) 548-6326
Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office FAX (714) 848.6643
November 10, 2003
Sharon Wood
Assistant City Manager
City of Newport Beach
Re: General Plan and LCP Biological Reports
Submission of Biologic Letter Reports from Robert A. Hamilton, March 9, 1998,
and July 16, 1998
Newport Village Open Space Site
Identification of Gnatcatchers and Sensitive Plants Onsite
Dear Sharon,
Please include the attached two letters from Robert A. Hamilton dated March 9, 1998, and July
16, 1998, in the biological reports for the General Plan Update and LCP process for Newport
Beach.
These letters document the presence of the federally threatened gnatcatcher bird in the site above
the Central Library, the Newport Village Open Space site, bounded by MacArthur and San
Miguel (section 3.1.4). Therefore, there are known occurrences for this species at the site.
In addition, sensitive plant species Coulter's Saltbush and Vernal Barley were detected on the site
and should be recorded in the reports. See attached.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
/ P. Pa--
Jan D. Vandersloot
Robert A. Hamilton
• March 9,1998
Stop Polluting Our Newport
P.O. Box 102
Balboa Island, CA 92662
SUBJECT: LETTER REPORT, INITIAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEDICATED OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT NEWPORT FASHION ISLAND
Dear SPON,
On behalf of the citizens' group Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), Dr. Jan Vandersloot requested
that I complete an initial biological survey on a parcel covering approximately 12 acres in the City
of Newport Beach (City). Dr. Vandersloot indicated to me that this parcel is presently dedicated to
the City as natural open space, and that SPON intends to participate in the City's planning process
regarding proposed construction of residential housing on this parcel. This letter report presents
the methods, results, and conclusions of my initial biological survey.
METHODS
• On 7 March 1997, I inspected an open space parcel covering approximately 12 acres near Fashion
Island Newport Center. The site is rectangular, and bounded on the east by MacArthur Boulevard,
on the north by San Miguel Drive, on the west by Avocado Avenue, and on the south by the
Newport Beach Public Library. Goals of my survey included (1) characterizing the site's plant
communities, including their dominant species plant and overall condition, and (2) identifying plant
and animal species present on the site, including sensitive species. I inspected the entire site and
made note of each vertebrate wildlife species that I detected. I recorded the plant species
characteristic of each plant community, but did not attempt to assemble a complete list of plant
species present on the site. Observations of sensitive species are discussed, but analysis of sensitive
species potentially present on the site was beyond the scope of this preliminary study.
•
Survey Summary
Survey Date Time Start Conditions End Conditions
7 March 1998 0800 -1130 clear; sunny; still; -70°F clear; sunny; still; -78°F
r� P.O. Box 961 �/ 20611%z Sycamore Drive - . - Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678
�,i (714) 459-2875 (Phone/Fax) —/ robbham@flash.net —Vi 1
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
RESULTS
• Plant Communities
The project site consists of a grassy mesa bordered on the south by a native coastal sage scrub
restoration effort, on the east and west by road edges and associated ornamental plantings (in
places), and on the north by native coastal sage scrub and two drainages supporting cat -tail marsh
vegetation. The following paragraphs discuss these communities, and their characteristic species,
in greater detail.
Annual Grassland/Seasonal Wetlands
The mesa, which accounts for approximately half of this parcel, is vegetated primarily with non-
native grasses and forbs, interspersed with native forbs and sub -shrubs. Considering the site's
location and the species composition, it is likely that the entire mesa was mechanically disturbed
in the past. Dominant and locally prevalent non-native species include brome grasses (Bromus
diandrus, B. mollis, B. madritensis ssp. rubus), Slender Wild Oats (Avena barbata), storksbills (Erodium
spp.), Bermuda -Buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), Black Mustard (Brassica nigra), and peppergrass
(Lepidium sp.); native species well represented in the site's annual grasslands include Cudweed
Aster (Lessingia filaginifolia), fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.), Big Gumplant (Grindelia camporum),
Telegraph Weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and Deer Weed (Lotus scoparius).
Two seasonal ponds exist within the site's annual grasslands. The larger of the ponds is at the
mesa's northeast corner and covers approximately 0.2 acre. This pond contained water to a
maximum depth of approximately six inches during the site survey, and supported at least three
• species adapted to wetland conditions: spike-rush (Eleocharis sp.), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), and
Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). The second pond is found along the western edge of the mesa, near
the intersection of Avocado and Farallon, and covers approximately 0.1 acre. This pond contained
water to a maximum depth of approximately eight inches during the site visit, and supported at
least two species adapted to wetland conditions: Curly Dock and Mulefat. Additional plant species
were present in these seasonal ponds, but were not mature enough to be identified during the site
survey.
•
Finally, a seasonally wet swale runs east and west near the southern edge of the mesa; I did not
observe surface water within this swale, but the Swale supports African Umbrella -Sedge (Cyperus
alternifolius), a species adapted to wetland conditions'.
Cat -tail Marsh
Cat -tail marshes are found in two perennial drainages that are fed by urban runoff in the northern
portion of the site. The site's principal drainage runs east and west, and supports a fairly extensive
stand of emergent vegetation, mostly cat -tails (Typha sp.). Also present here are numerous large
specimens of Pampas Grass (Cortaderia jubata) and some shrubby Arroyo Willows (Salix lasiolepis).
Approximately half of the emergent vegetation was recently removed from this drainage (i.e.,
within the past week) and stacked near its western terminus. To the north is a north -south trending
tributary to the principal drainage; this drainage supports a stringer of cat -tails. Together, these cat-
tail marshes appear to cover between 0.5 and 1.0 acre.
'Identification made by botanist David Bran -let.
2
5
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
Coastal Sage Scrub
• Native coastal sage scrub covers much of the northern half of the site. This community is dominated
by California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California Sunflower (Encelia californica), with
smaller amounts of Deer Weed, California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Saw-toothed
Goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), Coastal Prickly -Pear (Opuntia littoralis), Lemonade Berry (Rhus
integrifolia), Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis), and California Wishbone Bush (Mirabilis californica).
These native shrubs provide approximately SO to 100 percent cover in most areas, but are being
encroached upon by invasive exotic species, particularly Hottentot -Fig (Carpobrotus edulis) and
Myoporum (Myoporum laetum).
The cut -slope at the southern edge of the mesa (behind the Newport Beach Public Library building)
is being restored to a coastal sage scrub community comprised mainly of Black Sage (Salvia
mellifera), California Sagebrush, California Sunflower, Ashy -leaved Buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum),
and Buff Monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus). Scattered specimens of ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.) are
also present. This habitat is perhaps a year or two from reaching full maturity, as the plants are now
mostly two to three feet tall.
Ornamental Plantings
Manufactured slopes along Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard have been planted with
non-native ornamental groundcovers, including acacias (Acacia spp.), African Daisy (Dimorphotheca
sp.), and Sweet -Alyssum (Lobularia maritima). Sweet -Alyssum, known to be an invasive exotic weed
in southern California and elsewhere, is expanding somewhat into openings in the adjacent coastal
• sage scrub community.
Wildlife
This section discusses only vertebrate wildlife species observed during the site visit, it was beyond
the scope of this initial study to attempt to identify species with potential to occur on the site.
Reptiles
Two reptile species were observed: Side -blotched Lizard (Ufa stansburiana) and Western Skink
(Eumeces skiltonianus).
Birds
Of the 24 bird species observed during the site survey, most are common native residents such as
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna), American Crow (Corvim
brachyrhynchos), Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and Lesser
Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria). Winter visitors observed on the site include Common Snipe (Gallinago
gallinago)', Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus), Orange -crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata), Yellow-
rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata), and White -crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys).
One pair of Coastal California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica), a federally threatened
species, was observed in coastal sage scrub habitat located in the northeast portion of the site (see
attached map). I followed the male for over an hour and could see that this bird was definitely not
• banded. I obtained only brief views of the secretive female, but I believe that this bird was
1 Observed in cat -tail marsh habitat.
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
unbanded, as well. I did note that the female was carrying nesting material. The male gave a variety
of calls and scolds typical of the species; at one point, the male and female maintained
• communication through paired (occasionally tripled) House Finch -like calls: "jrry? jrry?"
I suspected that a second male California Gnatcatcher may have been present, but I could not
determine this conclusively. At one point the paired male responded very aggressively to another
bird that remained invisible to me, snapping his bill and scolding repeatedly.
«s if�3'iliiiil
Two common native mammal species were detected during the field surveys: California Ground'
Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Audubon Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Tracks of a canid,
possibly a Coyote (Canis Iatrans), were observed along a path on the mesa.
DISCUSSION
This open space parcel shows evidence of past disturbance, and its isolation from larger natural
open spaces reduces its conservation value for native plants and animals. Nonetheless, the site
presently supports a pair of threatened California Gnatcatchers, and its wetland and coastal sage
scrub habitats are protected by state and federal resource protection laws.
The presence of a Red-tailed Hawk on the site in early March suggests that this species nests in the
project vicinity and is likely to utilize the site during the breeding season. Thus, loss of this open
space area would likely represent a loss of foraging habitat for nesting raptors.
• If the City is considering development of this parcel, I would offer the following recommendations:
Retain a competent, experienced biologist to conduct a full biological assessment of the parcel.
This should include mapping and quantification of the site's plant communities, analysis of the
potential for additional sensitive plant and animal species to occur on this parcel, and any
appropriate focused surveys. For example, the site's seasonal ponds should be sampled for fairy
shrimps and rare plants; although none were observed during the initial site survey, these
species are typically difficult to detect except through a series of directed surveys over a period
of several weeks.
Consult with the County of Orange and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to ensure that loss of
occupied California Gnatcatcher habitat is handled properly with respect to the Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) for Central and Coastal Orange County. Rather than
completing a full set of six to nine California Gnatcatcher surveys, it may be possible to identify
coastal sage scrub on the site as occupied by nesting gnatcatchers, based on the results of this
study and perhaps one or two additional follow-up surveys.
• Delineate jurisdictional wetlands and consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding
potential impacts to cat -tail marsh habitat, seasonal ponds, and/or a seasonal swale.
• Consult with the California Department of Fish & Game regarding potential impacts to
streambeds with defined bed and banks.
• If a land -swap is considered involving other undeveloped parcels within the City presently zoned
for development, it would seem appropriate for such land to be of equal area to the subject parcel,
and to support coastal sage scrub occupied by California Gnatcatchers. If land to be swapped for
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
the subject parcel does not support native plant communities, then restoration with appropriate,
locally native species, should be required.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the planning process for this interesting, piece of
land. If you have any questions regarding this report, or wish to further discuss any issues, please
call me at (714) 459-2875 or send e-mail to robbham@flash.net.
Sincerely,
I p
r/�/v` ,�-b� O
Robert A. Hamilton
Consulting Biologist
Attachments: Map Showing Location of California Gnatcatcher Nesting Pair
List of Wildlife Species Observed
•
•
0
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED
DEDICATED OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT NEWPORT FASHION ISLAND
40 The following vertebrates were noted in the study area during the current study. Presence may be
noted if a species is seen or heard, or identified by the presence of tracks, scat or other signs.
*Introduced species
AYES BIRDS
Accipitridae Hawks
Buteo lineatus Red -shouldered Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk
Scolopacidae
Sandpipers
Gallinago gallinago
Common Snipe
Columbidae
Pigeons, Doves
Zenaida macroura
Mourning Dove
Trochilidae
Hummingbirds
Calypte anna
Anna's Hummingbird
Selasphorus sasin
Allen's Hummingbird
Tyrannidae
Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans
Black Phoebe
•
Corvidae
Jays, Crows
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American Crow
Corvus corax
Common Raven
Monarchidae
Monarch Flycatchers
Catharus guttatus
Hermit Thrush
Aegithalidae
Bushtits
Psaltriparus minimus
Bushtit
Troglodytidae
Wrens
Thryomanes bewickii
Bewick's Wren
Cistothorus palustris
Marsh Wren
Sylviidae
Old World Warblers, Gnatcatchers
Polioptila californica
California Gnatcatcher
Regulidae
Kinglets, Gnatcatchers, Thrushes, Babblers
Regulus calendula
Ruby -crowned Kinglet
Parulidae
Wood Warblers
Vermivora celata
Orange -crowned Warbler
Dendroica coronata
Yellow-rumped Warbler
•
Geothlypis trichas
Common Yellowthroat
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
Emberizidae
Melospiza melodia
• Melospiza lincolnii
Zonotrichia leucophrys
•
Fringillidae
Carpodacus mexicanus
Carduelis psaltria
Passeridae
* Passer domesticus
MAMMALIA
Leporidae
Sylvilagus audubonii
Sciuridae
Spermophilus beecheyi
Sparrows and Buntings
Song Sparrow
Lincoln's Sparrow
White -crowned Sparrow
Finches
House Finch
Lesser Goldfinch
Old World Sparrows
House Sparrow
MAMMALS
Hares, Rabbits
Audubon Cottontail
Squirrels
California Ground Squirrel
Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Stebbins (1966)', American Ornithologists' Union (1983)' and
Ingles (1965)'.
'Stebbins, R.C.1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin,
Boston.
'American Ornithologists' Union.1983. Check -list of North American Birds, sixth edition.
• Washington, D.C. and supplements through the 41" (1997).
'Ingles, L.G.1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press.
Robert A. Hamilton
• July 16,1998
Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON)
P.O. Box 102
Balboa Island, CA 92662
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP REPORT, INITIAL BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEDICATED OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT NEWPORT FASHION ISLAND
NEWPORT VILLAGE SITE
Dear SPON,
In a letter report dated 26 March 1998, I provided the methods and results of an initial biological
survey of the 12-acre "Newport Village" project site, located in the City of Newport Beach (City).
Subsequently, SPON requested that botanist David Bramlet and I complete follow-up biological
surveys on this site. The purpose of these follow-up surveys was to search for additional plant and
wildlife species present on the site, and to further observe a pair of Coastal California Gnatcatchers
(Polioptila californica californica) previously observed on the site. This follow-up report presents the
methods, results, and conclusions of my two biological surveys, and incorporates results of Mr.
• Bran -let's 1998 botanical survey.
METHODS
I completed field visits on 7 March and 2 June 1998, and David Bramlet inspected the site on 25
May 1998. Goals of our surveys included (1) characterizing the site's plant communities, including
their dominant species plant and overall condition, and (2) identifying plant and animal species
present on the site, including sensitive species. We inspected the entire site and made note of each
plant and vertebrate wildlife species detected. Observations of sensitive species are discussed, but
analysis of sensitive species potentially present on the site is beyond the scope of this preliminary
study.
SURVEY SUMMARY
Date Personnel Time Conditions
7 March 1998 Robert Hamilton 0800 -1130 clear; sunny; still; —70 - 78°F
25 May 1998 David Bramlet 0900 -1100 not noted
2 June 1998 Robert Hamilton 1200 -1300 clear; sunny; wind —8 mph SW; —75°F
•
P.O. Box 961 --/ 20611%z Sycamore Drive --/ Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678
-,/ (714) 459-2875 (Phone/Fax) -/ robbham@flash.net
1b
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
RESULTS
• Plant Communities
The project site consists of a grassy mesa bordered on the south by a native coastal sage scrub
restoration effort, on the east and west by road edges and associated ornamental plantings (in
places), and on the north by native coastal sage scrub and two drainages supporting cat -tail marsh
vegetation. A total of 42 native and 61 non-native species were detected on the site during the field
surveys. The following paragraphs discuss these communities, and their characteristic species, in
greater detail.
ANNUAL GRASSLAND & SEASONAL WETLANDS
The mesa, which accounts for approximately half of this parcel, is vegetated primarily with non-
native grasses and forbs, interspersed with native (orbs and sub -shrubs. Considering the site's
location and the species composition, it is likely that the entire mesa was mechanically disturbed
in the past. Dominant and locally prevalent non-native species include brome grasses (Bromus
diandrus, B. mollis, B. madritensis ssp. rubus), wild oats (Avena spp.), filarees (Erodium spp.),
Bermuda -Buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), and Black Mustard (Brassica nigra); native species well
represented in the site's annual grasslands include Cudweed Aster (Lessingia filaginifolia), Sand
Peppergrass (Lepidium lasiocarpum), Rigid Fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesit), Big Gumplant (Grindelia
camporum), Telegraph Weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and Deer Weed (Lotus scoparius). Vernal
Barley (Hordeum intercedens), a sensitive species, occurs in bare loamy -clay areas on the mesa.
• Two seasonal ponds exist within the site's annual grasslands. The larger of the ponds is at the
mesa's northeast corner and covers approximately 0.2 acre. This pond contained water to a
maximum depth of approximately six inches during the 7 March 1998 site survey, but had dried
by 25 May. The second pond is found along the western edge of the mesa, near the intersection of
Avocado and Farallon, and covers approximately 0.1 acre. This pond contained water to a
maximum depth of approximately eight inches during the 7 March 1998 site visit, but this pool also
had dried by 25 May. These seasonal ponds support a variety of native and non-native plant
species adapted to wetland conditions, including Pale Spike -Rush (Eleocharis palustris), Woolly
Marbles (Psilocarphus brevissimus), Vernal Barley, Toad Rush (Juncos bufonius), Curly Dock (Rumex
crispus), and Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia).
Finally, a seasonally wet Swale runs east and west near the southern edge of the mesa; we did not
observe surface water within this swale, but the swale supports African Umbrella -Sedge (Cyperus
alternifolius), a species adapted to wetland conditions.
CAT -TAIL MARSH
Cat -tail marshes are found in two perennial drainages that are fed by urban runoff in the northern
portion of the site. The site's principal drainage runs east and west, and supports a fairly extensive
stand of emergent vegetation, mostly Slender Cat -tail (Typha angustifolia). Also present here are
numerous large specimens of Pampas Grass (Cortaderia selloana) and some shrubby Arroyo Willows
• (Salix lasiolepis). Approximately half of the emergent vegetation was removed from this drainage
0
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
in February 1998 and stacked near its western terminus. To the north is a north -south trending
• tributary to the principal drainage; this drainage supports a stringer of cat -tails. Together, these cat-
tail marshes appear to cover between 0.5 and 1.0 acre.
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB
Native coastal sage scrub covers much of the northern half of the site. This community is
dominated by California Sagebrush (Artetnisia californica) and California Sunflower (Encelia
californica), with smaller amounts of Deer Weed, California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum),
Saw-toothed Goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), Coastal Prickly -Pear (Opuntia littoralis), Lemonade
Berry (Rhus integrifolia), Coyote Brush (Baccharispilularis), and California Wishbone Bush (Mirabilis
californica). These native shrubs provide approximately 80 to 100 percent cover in most areas, but
are being encroached upon by invasive exotic species, particularly Hottentot -Fig (Carpobrotus
eduhs) and Myoporum (Myoporum laetum).
The cut -slope at the southernedge of themesa (behind the NewportBeach Public Librarybuilding)
is being restored to a coastal sage scrub community comprised mainly of Black Sage (Salvia
mellifera), California Sagebrush, California Sunflower, Island Buckwheat (Eriogonum grande),
Interior Flat-topped Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum), and Buff Monkeyflower
(Mimulus aurantiacus). Scattered specimens of ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.) are also present. This
habitat is perhaps a year or two from reaching full maturity, as the plants are now mostly two to
three feet tall.
• ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS
•
Manufactured slopes along Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard have been planted with
non-native ornamental groundcover, including Golden Wattle (Acacia pycantha), African Daisy
(Dimorphotheca sinuata), and Sweet -Alyssum (Lobularia maritima). Sweet -Alyssum, known tote an
invasive exotic weed in southern California and elsewhere, is expanding somewhat into openings
in the adjacent coastal sage scrub community.
Wildlife
This section discusses onlyvertebratewildlife species observed during the site visits; itwas beyond
the scope of this preliminary survey to attempt to identify species with potential to occur on the
site.
REPTILES
Two reptile species were observed: Side -blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana) and Western Skink
(Eumeces skiltonianus).
3
IJ
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
Coulter's Saltbush (Atriplex coulteri)
• Coulter's Saltbush is placed on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B, which includes
species considered by CNPS to be rare or endangered in California and elsewhere. This low,
spreading perennial saltbush species is known to occur in coastal bluff and grassland habitats with
some alkalinity. Red stems and opposite leaves distinguish Coulter's Saltbush from the more
common, introduced Australian Saltbush. This species is distributed from Los Angeles County,
east to San Bernardino County and south to Baja California. It is most commonly found on the
Channel Islands. In Orange County this species has been recorded from Laguna Beach, Pelican
Hill, Signal Hill, Trabuco Canyon and Cristianitos Canyon.
On 25 May 1998, David Bran -let detected one specimen of Coulter's Saltbush on a bare, eroding
slope in the southeast portion of the mesa, growing with Vernal Barley and the introduced
Australian Saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata).
Vernal Barley (Hordeum intercedens)
This annual grass is placed on CNPS List 3, a review list of plants suggested by CNPS for
consideration as endangered but about which more information is needed. This species was
recently added to this review list due to the continued declines in preferred habitat, the limited
collections, and general lack of knowledge related to the difficulty of identifying this grass.
• Vernal Barley is known from scattered collections throughout a range that extends from San
Francisco to Kern County, extending south into Baja California and onto the Channel Islands. In
southern California, Vernal Barley is generally known from Riverside County, where it occurs on
the Santa Rosa Plateau and in alkali sink grasslands along the San Jacinto River and west of Hemet.
In San Diego, Vernal Barley is found adjacent to vernal pools on Otay Mesa, extending northward
to Camp Pendleton. This species was only recently recorded in Orange County, where it has been
recorded at vernal pools in Costa Mesa (Fairview Park) and clay soil habitats at the U.C. Irvine
Ecological Reserve, near Quail Hill (Irvine), and at several locales near the county's southern
border.
On 25 May 1998, David Bramlet detected limited numbers of Vernal Barley (fewer than 100 plants)
in bare loamy -clay areas on the mesa, and in the site's seasonally wet ponds.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Poliopiila californica californica)
The Coastal California Gnatcatcher is a federally threatened bird species that is considered a
California Species of Special Concern. This species formerly occupied coastal sage scrub and coastal
bluff scrub communities from Ventura County south to northwestern Baja California. It is now
absent from much of its former range. In Orange County, Coastal California Gnatcatchers occupy
coastal sage scrub and similar native associations on gentle to moderate slopes south and east of
the Santa Ana River. The major populations are located near the coast, in the Fullerton Hills, on the
coastal slope of Loma Ridge and in the southern foothills.
•
4S
Robert A. Hamilton, Consniting Biologist
On 7 March 1998, I observed a pair of Coastal California Gnatcatchers in coastal sage scrub habitat
located in the northeast portion of the site (see attached map). I followed the male for over an hour,
• and during brief views of the secretive female, I could see that she was carrying nesting material.
On 2 June 1998, I observed this pair again for approximately 10 minutes, and did not detect any
juveniles.
DISCUSSION
Although this open space parcel is physically isolated from larger open space areas and shows
evidence of past disturbance, it retains a mosaic of habitats that includes seasonal and perennial
wetlands, coastal sage scrub and grasslands. The site's wetland and coastal sage scrub communities
are subject to specific state and federal resource protection laws.
The site's plant communities provide habitat for a variety of native plants, reptiles, birds and
mammals. In particular, the presence of two biologically sensitive plant species, and attempted
nestingby a pair of Coastal California Gnatcatchers attests to the site's value as natural open space.
The presence of a Red-tailed Hawk on the site in early March suggests that this species nests in the
project vicinity and is likely to utilize the site during the breeding season. Thus, loss of this open
space area would likely represent a loss of foraging habitat for nesting raptors.
If the City is considering development of this parcel, I would offer the following recommendations:
• Retain a competent, experienced biologist to conduct a full biological assessment of the parcel .This
should include mapping and quantifying the site's plant communities, analysis of the potential for
additional sensitive plant and animal species to occur on this parcel, and any appropriate focused
surveys. For example, the site's seasonal ponds should be sampled for fairy shrimps and rare
plants; although none were observed during the site surveys, these species are typically difficult
to detect except through a series of directed surveys over a period of several weeks.
Consult with the County of Orange and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to ensure that loss of occupied
California Gnatcatcher habitat is handled properly with respect to the Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP) for Central and Coastal Orange County. Rather than completing a full
set of six to nine California Gnatcatcher surveys, it may be possible to identify coastal sage scrub
on the site as occupied by nesting gnatcatchers, based on the results of this survey and perhaps one
or two additional follow-up surveys.
Delineate jurisdictional wetlands and consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding
potential impacts to cat -tail marsh habitat, seasonal ponds, and/or a seasonal swale.
Consultwith the California Department of Fish & Game regarding potential impacts to streambeds
with defined bed and banks.
• If the City considers swapping this land for one or more parcels located elsewhere in the City, it
would seem appropriate for such land to 1) presently be zoned for development (not open space),
A
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
2) be of equal area to the subject parcel, and 3) support wetlands, sensitive plant species, and
coastal sage scrub occupied by nesting California Gnatcatchers. If any land considered for
• swapping for the subject parcel includes degraded plant communities, then restoration with
appropriate, locally native species should be required prior to removal of habitat from the subject
parcel.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the planning process for this interesting piece of
land. If you have any questions regarding this report, or wish to further discuss any issues, please
call me at (949) 459-2875 or send e-mail to robbham@flash.net.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Hamilton
Consulting Biologist
Attachments: Map Showing Location of California Gnatcatcher Nesting Pair
Appendix A - Plant Species Observed
Appendix B - Wildlife Species Observed
n
•
.. ,
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
APPENDIX A
• PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
DEDICATED OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT NEWPORT FASHION ISLAND
The following plant species were detected on the project site during the current study.
* Introduced species
ANTHOPHYTA: DICOTYLEDONES DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Aizoaceae Carpet -Weed Family
* Carpobrotus edulis Hottentot -Fig
* Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum Small -flowered Ice Plant
Amaranthaceae Amaranth Family
* Amaranthus albus Tumbling Pigweed
Apiaceae
Carrot Family
Daucus pusillus
Rattlesnake Weed
*
Foeniculum vulgare
Sweet Fennel
Asteraceae
Sunflower Family
Artemisia californica
California Sagebrush
Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea
Coyote Brush
Baccharis salicifolia
Mulefat
• *
Carduus pycnocephalus
Italian Thistle
*
Centaurea melitensis
Tocalote
*
Chrysanthemum coronatum
Garland Chrysanthemum
Conyza canadensis
Common Horseweed
*
Cotula coronopifolia
African Brass -Buttons
*
Dimorphotheca sinuata
African Daisy
Encelia californica
California Encelia
Filago californica
California Filago
*
Filago gallica
Narrow -leaved Filago
*
Gazania linearis
Gazania
Gnaphalium beneolens
Fragrant Everlasting
Grindelia camporum
Big Gumplant
*
Hedypnois cretica
Crete Hedypnois
Hemizonia fasciculata
Fascicled Tarweed
Heterotheca grand flora
Telegraph Weed
*
Hypochoeris glabra
Smooth Cat's Ear
Isocoma menziesii
Coastal Goldenbush
Lessingia filaginifolia
Cudweed Aster
Psilocarphus brevissimus
Woolly Marbles
*
Sonchus asper
Prickly Sow -Thistle
*
Sonchus oleraceus
Common Sow -Thistle
Stephanomeria virgata
Tall Stephanomeria
•
t"�
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
Boraginaceae
Amsinckia menziesii
• Heliotropium curassavicum ssp. oculatum
Brassicaceae
* Brassica nigra
* Coronopus didymus
* HirschfeIdia incana
Lepidium lasiocarpum
* Lobularia maritima
* Raphanus sativus
Cactaceae
Opuntia littoralis
Capparaceae
Isomeris arborea
Caryophyllaceae
* Polycarpon tetraphyllum
* Spergula arvensis
Spergularia marina
Chenopodiaceae
• Atriplex coulteri
* Atriplex semibaccata
* Chenopodium murale
* Salsola tragus
Convolvulaceae
Calystegia macrostegia ssp.intermedia
* Convolvulus arvensis
Crassulaceae
Crassula connata
Cucurbitaceae
Cucurbita foetidissima
Marah macrocarpus
Euphorbiaceae
Chamaesyce serpyllifolia
Eremocarpus setiger
Fabaceae
* Acacia pycantha
Lotus hamatus
Lotus scoparius
Lotus unifoliolatus
Lupinus bicolor
Borage Family
Rigid Fiddleneck
Salt Heliotrope
Mustard Family
Black Mustard
Lesser Wart -Cress
Shortpod Mustard
Sand Peppergrass
Sweet -Alyssum
Wild Radish
Cactus Family
Coastal Prickly -Pear
Caper Family
Bladderpod
Pink Family
Four-leaved Polycarp
Corn Spurrey
Salt Marsh Sand Spurry
Goosefoot Family
Coulter's Saltbush
Australian Saltbush
Nettle -leaved Goosefoot
Russian -Thistle
Morning-glory Family
Short -lobed Morning -Glory
Field Bindweed
Stonecrop Family
Pigmy Sand Weed
Gourd Family
Coyote Gourd
Wild Cucumber
Spurge Family
Thyme -leaved Spurge
Doveweed
Pea Family
Golden Wattle
San Diego Lotus
Coastal Deerweed
Spanish Lotus
Bicolored Lupine
A-2
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
•
•
0
* Medicago polymorpha var. polymorpha
" Melilotus indica
Geraniaceae
* Erodium botrys
* Erodium cicutarium
Lamiaceae
Salvia mellifera
Lythraceae
* Lythrum hyssopifolium
Myoporaceae
* Myoporum laetum
Myrtaceae
* Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Onagraceae
* Oenothera sp.
Oxalidaceae
* Oxalis pes-caprae
Plantaginaceae
* Plantago coronopus
* Plantago erecta ssp. californfca
Plumbaginaceae
* Limonium perezii
Bur -Clover
Yellow Sweetclover
Geranium Family
Long -beaked Filaree
Red -stemmed Filaree
Mint Family
Black Sage
Loosestrife Family
Grass Poly
Myoporum Family
Myoporum
Myrtle Family
River Red Gum
Evening -Primrose Family
Evening -Primrose (planted)
Wood -sorrel Family
Bermuda -Buttercup
Plantain Family
Cut -leaf Plantain
California Plantain
Leadwort Family
Perez's Sea -Lavender (planted)
Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family
* Eriogonum gmnde Island Buckwheat (planted)
Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum Interior Flat-topped Buckwheat
* Polygonum arenastrum Yard Knotweed
* Rumex crispus Curly Dock
Primulaceae
* Anagallis arvensis
Rhamnaceae
* Ceanothus sp.
Salicaceae
Salix lasiolepis
Scrophulariaceae
Mimulus aurantiacus
Primrose Family
Scarlet Pimpernel
Buckthorn Family
ceanothus (planted)
Willow Family
Arroyo Willow
Figwort Family
Bush Monkeyflower
A-3
6
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
•
0
C , J
Solanaceae
* Nicotiana glauca
* Solanum americanum
ANGIOSPERMAE: MONOCOTYLEDONAE
Cyperaceae
* Cyperus alternifolius
Cyperus eragrostis
Eleocharis palustris
Juncaceae
Juncus bufonius
Poaceae
* Avena barbata
* Avena fatua
* Brachypodium distachyon
* Bromus diandrus
* Bromus hordeaceus
* Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens
* Cortaderia selloana
* Cynodon dachjlon
Hordeum intercedens
* Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum
Nassella sp.
* Paspalum dilatatum
* Poaannua
* Polypogon monspeliensis
* Schismus barbatus
* Setaria pumila
* Vulpia myuros
Typhaceae
Typha domingensis
Nightshade Family
Tree Tobacco
Small -flowered Nightshade
MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS
Sedge Family
African Umbrella -Sedge
Tall Umbrella -Sedge
Pale Spike -Rush
Rush Family
Toad Rush
Grass Family
Slender Wild Oat
Common Wild Oat
Purple False Brome
Common Ripgut Grass
Soft Chess
Foxtail Chess
Selloa Pampas Grass
Bermuda Grass
Vernal Barley
Hare Barley
Needlegrass
Dallis Grass
Annual Bluegrass
Rabbitfoot Grass
Mediterranean Schismus
Yellow Bristlegrass
Foxtail Fescue
Cat -tail Family
Slender Cat -Tail
Taxonomy and scientific nomenclature follows Hickman (1993)1; common names primarily follow
Roberts (1998)2.
'Hickman, J. C.1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of
California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
'Roberts, F. M. fr.1998. A Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Orange County, California,
Second Edition. F. M. Roberts Publications, Encinitas.
A-4
20
w y,
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
APPENDIX B
• WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED
DEDICATED OPEN SPACE PARCEL AT NEWPORT FASHION ISLAND
The following reptiles, birds and mammals were detected in the study area during the current
study. Presence may be noted if a species is seen or heard, or identified by the presence of tracks,
scat or other signs.
*Introduced species
REPTILIA REPTILES
Iguanidae Iguanid Lizards
Llta stansburiana Side -blotched Lizard
Scincidae Skinks
Eumeces skiltonianus Western Skink
AVES BIRDS
Cathartidae New World Vultures
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture
Accipitridae
Hawks
Buteo lineatus
Red -shouldered Hawk
•
Buteo jamaicensis
Red-tailed Hawk
Scolopacidae
Sandpipers
Gallinago gallinago
Common Snipe
Columbidae
Pigeons, Doves
Zenaida macroura
Mourning Dove
Trochilidae
Hummingbirds
Calypte anna
Anna's Hummingbird
Selasphorus sasin
Allen's Hummingbird
Tyrannidae
Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans
Black Phoebe
Corvidae
Jays, Crows
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American Crow
Corvus corax
Common Raven
Monarchidae
Monarch Flycatchers
Catharus guttatus
Hermit Thrush
Aegithalidae
Bushtits
Psaltriparus minimus
Bushtit
•
I
Robert A. Hamilton, Consulting Biologist
Troglodytidae Wrens
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren
• Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren
Sylviidae Old World Warblers, Gnatcatchers
Polioptila californica California Gnatcatcher
Regulidae Kinglets, Gnatcatchers, Thrushes, Babblers
Regulus calendula Ruby -crowned Kinglet
Mimidae Thrashers
Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird
Parulidae
Wood Warblers
Vermivora celata
Orange -crowned Warbler
Dendroica coronata
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Geothlypis trichas
Common Yellowthroat
Emberizidae
Sparrows and Buntings
Pipilo crissalis
California Towhee
Melospiza melodia
Song Sparrow
Melospiza lincolnii
Lincoln's Sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys
White -crowned Sparrow
Fringillidae
Finches
Carpodacus mexicanus
•
House Finch
Carduelis psaltria
Lesser Goldfinch
Passeridae
Old World Sparrows
* Passer domesticus
House Sparrow
MAMMALIA MAMMALS
Leporidae Hares, Rabbits
Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon Cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrels
Spermophilus beecheiyi California Ground Squirrel
Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Stebbins (1966)', American Ornithologists' Union (1983)' and
Ingles (1965)s.
'Stebbins, R.C.1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin,
Boston.
'American Ornithologists' Union.1983. Check -list of North American Birds, sixth edition.
• Washington, D.C. and supplements through the 4151(1997).
'Ingles, L.G.1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press.
d
V
. � .
,�,��;
�,
z
fi ��� � `�' �l s
� � �
�
fJ f ����� �
y '�`a'.
��� � &
♦►
�� n
r �, /
:�., `�
�f
� i�.
� A'��
a �'.
.. " Jar
.:�"' r
°`
�� fj`��yy�.'
M
a ��'
� �
pe�,+ `�.
Y.9
�.^� a
� ����
� �4►yy
L iy
�
��J a } ��yy �
�
.,
� *; {
..
, .. 4''�t3V C'M6t � 4
11f' 3'" D 'L AP
'i�'X��,��
0..�^� ,
� > ��
� �
�( � S ��.
�
L�
r.
�� 'ly
�'T
F'A'
�jw
a.. Wit"" }.�..
N
�� f'
Z�
�
}
pr
C
S
r
W s.�Y
'
� �..
1
�,
�
% �
i
._t.
_... _ ...... _
r a;;'ra
'U
e �`
,. .. �
� ,
�� ��
i����
d
��
�•
� �:
/ �
H� �,
:.
�,�.
` r
e�. -
JS
l"r- v
1I; \\`
.
�.—
�;_+
.,,�, a�
f
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, December 8, 2003
Roger Alford
Patrick Bartolic
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Karlene Bradley
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
Florence Felton
Nancy Gardner
•
Louise Greeley
— Ernie Hatchell
-- Bob Hendrickson
— Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
—. Kim Jansma
Mike Johnson
Bill Kelly
Donald Krotee
— Lucille Kuehn
Philip Lugar
Marie Marston
Peter Oeth '
Catherine O'Hara
Carl Ossipoff
1
M 4
Charles Remley
. Larry Root
John Saunders
,James Schmiesing
Ed Siebel
—Jackie Sukiasian
Jan Vandersloot
- Tom Webber
Ron Yeo
•
•
2
:
W
N
.84
.80
EXHIBIT N
EXISTING_ VOLUME/CAPACITY (V/C)
12
0
LEGEND:
.82- VOWMEICAPACITY RATIO
71 so PACIFIC
90 si c OCEAN
aL
---------------
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY Newport Beach, Calrfomia-01232:82 rev.'12/05/038�.
• •
Newport Boulevard north of Via Lido
•
Irvine Avenue north of University Drive
•
Jamboree Road north of Bayview Way
•
Jamboree Road north of University Drive
•
MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road
•
MacArthur Boulevard north of Coast Highway
•
Irvine Avenue south of University Drive
•
Bristol Street South east of Birch Street
•
Coast Highway east of Dover Drive
•
Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard
•
Coast Highway east of Goldenrod Avenue
•
Coast Highway east of Marguerite Avenue
•
Coast Highway west of Riverside Drive
•
Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive
•
Bristol Street South west of Campus Drive
•
Bristol Street South west of Jamboree Road
u
•
• TABLE 7
NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
•
•
INTERSECTION NS & EW
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
0.66
B
0.67
B
3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84
D
0.90
D
4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd.
0.54
A
0.70
B
5. Newport BI. & Via Lido
0.41
A
0:37
6. Newport BI. & 32nd St.
0.73
C
0.78
C
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84
D
0.93
E
8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.80
C
0.67
B
9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.
0.61
B
0.85
D
10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St.
0.49
A
0.66
B
11. Von Kerman Av. & Campus Dr.
0.55
A
0.79
C
12. MacArthur Bl. & Von Karmen Av.
0.46
A
0.53
13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr.
0.74
Cl0.85
D
14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
0.55
A
0.60
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N
0.77
C
0.94
'E
16. Birch St. & Bristol St. N
0.66
B
0.61
B
17. Campus DrArvine Av. & Bristol St. S
0.72
C
0.58
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. S
0.46
A
0.44
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
0.70
B
0.94
E
20. Irvine Av. & University Dr.
0.82
D
0.89
D
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.66
B
0.72
C
22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.57
A
0.60
23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.72
C
0.64
B
24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr.
0.57
A
0.77
C
25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr.
0.38
A
0.48
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.55
Al0.57
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.70
B
0.74
C
28. Ba side Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.69
B
0.70
B
29. MacArthur Bl. & Jamboree Rd.
0.88
D
0.91
E
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. N
0.55
A
0.59
31. Bayview Pl. & Bristol St. S
0.48
A
0.56
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S
0.75
C
0.72
C
33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayvlew W .
0.41
A
0.57
34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr.
0.60
A
0.64
B
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av.
0.45
A
0.51
36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd.,,,d,,,
37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.69
0.56
B
A
0.65
0.57
B
43 3
• The following 6 intersections currently experience deficient (LOS "E" or worse)
peak hour operations under existing (2002) conditions:
•
• Riverside Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW)
• Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street (N) (EW)
• Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW)
• Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW)
Exhibit T depicts the existing deficiencies graphically.
42
J
i�
EXHIBIT T
EXISTING INTERSECTION DEFICIENCIES
sm
6 W�1
S0.h
e sr
M1W"' TLN
90 6 m AV.
2
55 �
4
. 'l41U
< D0.
2
.j�• IOIN $ .
TN A,
LEGEND:
O -AM DEFICIENCY
PM DEFICIENCY
AM/PM DEFICIENCY
(ALL LOS "E") URBAN
L
In
to
L
EXHIBIT W
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT VOLUME/CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS
.62
Im
.29
Sn
LEGEND:
.88= VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO
� � .sz •n
66 PACIFIC
---� OCEAN
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TRAFFIC STUDY Newport Beach Califomia - 01232:83 rev.12/05/03 %B!
• Newport Boulevard north of Hospital Road
• Newport Boulevard north of Via Lido
Jamboree Road north of Campus Drive
Jamboree Road north of Birch Street
Irvine Avenue north of University Drive
• Dover Drive north of Coast Highway
• Jamboree Road north of San Joaquin Hills Road
• MacArthur Boulevard north of Bison Avenue
• MacArthur Boulevard north of Ford Road
• Newport Coast Drive north of SR-73 NB Ramps
• Newport Boulevard south of Hospital Road
• Jamboree Road south of Birch Street
• Irvine Avenue south of University Drive
Campus Drive east of MacArthur Boulevard
• Bristol Street North east of Birch Street
• Bristol Street South east of Birch Street
• Coast Highway east of Dover Drive
• Coast Highway east of Bayside Drive
• Coast Highway east of Jamboree Road
• Ford Road east of MacArthur Boulevard
• Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard
• Coast Highway east of Goldenrod Avenue -
• Coast Highway east of Marguerite Avenue
• Coast Highway east of Poppy Avenue
• Coast Highway west of Superior Avenue/Balboa Boulevard
• Coast Highway west of Riverside Drive
• Bristol Street North west of Campus Drive
. Bristol Street South west of Campus Drive
• Bristol Street South west of Jamboree Road
based on the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and
is the intersection geometric data.
As shown in Table 12, ICU values generally increase in the General Plan buildout
conditions. The exceptions occur where new parallel facilities are available, or
where an increase in lanes results in increased capacity. The 18 intersections with
ICU values greater than 0.90 (LOS "E" or worse) in either peak period are:
• Bluff Road (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Superior Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Newport Boulevard (NS)/Hospital Road (EW) (PM)
• Riverside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (PM)
• Von Karman Avenue (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (PM)
• Jamboree Road (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (AM/PM)
• . Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (AM/PM)
• Birch Street (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (AM)
• Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue (NS)/Bristol Street South (EW) (AM)
• Irvine Avenue (NS)/University Avenue (EW) (AM/PM)
• Bayside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) (AM/PM)
• Jamboree Road (NS)/Bristol Street South (EW) (AM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM)
• Goldenrod (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Marguerite (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM/PM)
The intersections with future buildout (Currently Adopted General Plan) ICU values that
exceed 0.90 are depicted graphically on Exhibit X. It is important to note that for both
existing and build -out conditions, Intersection Capacity Utilization ratio calculations
reflect the function of intersections for a very limited amount of time throughout the day
59
TABLE 12
• NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY
•
INTERSECTION NS/EW
AM PEAK HOUR
I
PM
PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
1EXISTING
DELTAI
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
•DELTA
1. Bluff Rd. & Coast Hw. I
DNE'l
1.01
1.011
DNE
0.76
0.76
2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
0.661
0.65
-0.011
0.67
0.55
-0.12
3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84
1.01
0.17
0.90
0.80
-0.10
4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd.
0.54
0.87
0.33
0.70
0.93
0.23
5. Newport BI. & Via Lido
0.41
0.52
0.11
0.37
0.44
0.07
6. NTn2rt BI. & 32nd St.
0.73
0.67
-0.06
0.78
0.76
-0.02
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84
0.80
0.83
0.76
-0.01
-0.04
0.93
0.67
1.12
0.87
0.19
0.20
9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.
10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St.
11. Von Karman Av. & Cam us Dr.
0.61
0.49
0.55
0.72
0.71
0.67
0.11
0.22
0.12
0.85
0.66
0.79
1.21
0.80
0.94
0.36
0.14
0.15
12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av.
0.46
0.54
0.08
0.53
0.64
0.11
13. Jamboree Rd. & Cam us Dr.
0.74
0.93
0.19
0.85
1.23
0.38
14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
0.55
0.90
0.35
0.60
0.89
0.29
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St.
0.77
0.97
0.20
0.94
1.09
0.15
16. Birch St. & Bristol St.
0.66
0.93
0.27
0.61
0.71
0.10
17. Cam us Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St. S
0.72
0.91
0.19
0.58
0.76
0.18
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. S
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
0.46
0.70
0.52
0.68
0.06
-0.02
0.44
0.94
0.53
0.90
0.09
-0.04
20. Irvine Av. & University Dr.
0.82
1.15
0.33
0.89
1.06
0.17
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.66
0.58
-0.08
0.72
0.62
-0.10
22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.57
0.51
-0.06
0.60
0.55
-0.05
23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.72
0.75
0.03
0.64
0.65
0.01
4. Irvine Av. & WestcliffDr.
0.57
0.49
-0.08
0.77
0.74
-0.03
25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr.
0.38
0.26
-0.12
0.48
0.48
0.00
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.55
0.47
-0.08
0.57
0.55
-0.02
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.70
0.71
0.01
0.74
0.74
0.00
28. Bayside Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.69
0.85
0.16
0.70
0.94
0.24
29. MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.
0.88
0.97
0.09
0.91
0.98
0.07
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St.
31. Bayview Pl. & Bristol St. S
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S -
33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview WY,
0.55
0.48
0.75
0.41
0.07
0.61
0.95
0.45
-0.48
0.13
0.20
0.04
0.59
0.56
0.72
0.57
0.02
0.63
0.83
0.68
-0.57
0.07
0.11
0.11
34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /Universi Dr.
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av.
36. Jamboree Rd. & EastbluffDrJFord Rd.
37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.60
0.45
0.69
0.56
0.58
0.46
0.74
0.64
-0.02
0.01
0.05
0.08
0.64
0.51
0.65
0.57
0.61
0.54
0.70
0.65
-0.03
0.03
0.05
0.08
City of NewportBeach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
• PRELMININARY GPAC GEOGRAPHIC TOPICS SUBCOMMITTEES
December 5 2003
Meeting Group
A B C D
I April 26 Banning Ranch John Wayne Mariners Mile Fashion Island/
Airport Area Newport Center
11 May 10 Banning Ranch John Wayne Mariners Mile Fashion Island/
Airport Area Newport Center
III May 24 Banning Ranch John Wayne
Airport Area
IV June 7 Lido Marina/Civic West Newport
Center Industrial
V June 12 Cannery Village/ West Newport
McFadden Square Industrial
I•
Corona del Mar
Central Balboa
Central Balboa
West Newport
Residential
Old Newport
Boulevard
Santa Ana Heights
City of Newport Beach GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
• PRELMININARY GPAC ELEMENT TOPICS SUBCOMMITTEES
December 2, 2003
Meeting
Group
A
B
C
1
Nov 8
Conservation and
Public Safety
Historic Resources
Natural Resources
II
Nov 22
Conservation and
Public Safety
(no meeting)
Natural Resources
III
Dec 13
Arts and Cultural
Harbor and Bay
Recreation and
Open Space
IV
Jan 10
Land Use
(no meeting)
Recreation and
Open Space
V
Jan 24
Land Use
Circulation
Economic Strategic
Plan
VI
Feb 7
Land Use
Circulation
Growth
Management
VII
Feb 21
(no meeting)
Circulation
(no meeting)
Vill
Mar 7
Housing
Noise
(no meeting)
0
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
December 8, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Nancy Gardner
Catherine O'Hara
Phillip Bettencourt
Louise Greeley
Carl Ossipoff
Carol Boice
Mike Ishikawa
Charles Remley
Karlene Bradley
Mike Johnson
Larry Root
Gus Chabre
Bill Kelly
John Saunders
John Corrough
Donald Krotee
Ed Siebel
Laura Dietz
Phillip Lugar
Jan Vandersloot
Grace Dove
Marie Marston
Ron Yeo
Florence Felton
Peter Oeth
Members Absent:
Patrick Bartolic
Tom Hyans
James Schmiesing
Ernest Hatchell
Kim Jansma
Jackie Sukiasian
Bob Hendrickson
Lucille Kuehn
Tom Webber
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Rich Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Members of the Public Present:
None
I. Call to Order
Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. Ms. Gardner announced that the
next meeting of the LCP Committee was scheduled for Wednesday, December 12
at 4:30 p.m. and invited anyone interested to attend. She also announced that
• Tom Hyans had suffered a stroke over the weekend and was at Hoag Hospital.
II. Approval of Minutes
Laura Dietz pointed out a typographical error on Page 4 of the minutes,
commend should be comment. The minutes of the November 10, 2003 meeting
were approved with correction.
III. Traffic Study Update
Carleton Waters of Urban Crossroads reviewed a PowerPoint presentation
covering the Traffic Model Executive Summary which was included in the agenda
packet (attached). During and after the presentation the following questions
were raised.
Jan Vandersloot asked for clarification on the study area for the model. Mr.
Waters indicated that the study area is based on the City boundaries as of 1999.
However, it includes data obtained from outside sources (County, Costa Mesa,
etc.) to cover the entire City including annexation areas since 1999.
• Charles Remley asked for clarification regarding the term "attractions". Mr.
Waters explained each "trip" has two ends, a "production" end and an
"attraction" end.
Louise Greeley asked if the report accounted for the Hoag Hospital expansion,
because she had heard that there would be no impacts on traffic with the
expansion. Mr. Waters explained that there may be a problem with the level of
service at the intersection of Newport Blvd. and Hospital Road if no changes are
made to the intersection and the hospital continues to expand; however the
deficiency could be a result of other factors in the area in addition to the hospital
expansion such as the extension of the 55 freeway and widening of Coast
Highway, etc.
Mike Johnson asked about the extension of the 55 freeway. Rich Edmonston
reported that the environmental document done for the extension showed the
freeway coming to the Newport Beach city limit, essentially 15t' Street; however
it is unlikely that the extension will ever happen.
Bill Kelly asked if a ramp was planned from PCH onto Newport, which would
cause the restaurant and liquor store to be relocated. Mr. Edmonston said that
had been suggested but it is not in the existing plan.
2
Don Krotee pointed out a discrepancy with the Exhibit X in the Executive
• Summary and the Exhibit X in the presentation. Mr. Waters explained that they
changed the Exhibit to help clarify the hours when deficiencies occurred.
Nancy Gardner asked about the list on Page 41 which indicated Irvine Avenue
and Mesa Drive as a deficient intersection and then in the handout material the
intersection of Irvine Avenue and University is listed. Mr. Waters said the City of
Costa Mesa has plans to widen Del Mar and University to four lanes which would
have an impact on that intersection.
John Saunders asked about the Volume/Capacity Ratio exhibit. Mr. Waters
explained that this exhibit had caused confusion with others and went into more
detail to help clarify. Mr. Saunders was concerned about listing intersections in
the airport area as LOS F when he drives that area and has no traffic problems.
Mr. Waters added that in the future traffic will increase in the area due to the
airport, UCI and Irvine Business Complex.
Phillip Lugar asked about the traffic impacts from the apartment complex at
Campus and Jamboree. Mr. Waters pointed out that the impacts are interesting
when housing is added in an area with major business developments; it allows
employees to live closer to the workplace which reduces their commute and may
change the direction of peak hour traffic.
Mr. Vandersloot asked if the Pacific City development in Huntington Beach had
been included in the study. Mr. Waters indicated it had not, however it could be
by adding the data into the model.
Ron Yeo asked if the final model will include all the incorporated land use areas.
Mr. Waters stated that the areas are all included; the difference is that the data
came from outside agencies.
Grace Dove pointed out that the summertime traffic on the peninsula was not
represented in the report. Mr. Waters indicated that summertime traffic count
data was added showing it 75% higher. Ms. Dove added that the intersections
are not rated as LOS F which is the condition during the summer and if someone
not familiar with the area was reading the report, the problem is not clearly
shown.
Mr. Krotee pointed out that Table 4 does not include counts on Newport Blvd.
north of Coast Highway. Mr. Waters stated that they tried to choose a
reasonable number of locations depicting the traffic increases.
Mr. Yeo asked if a graphic could be created showing LOS A intersections. Mr.
• Waters agreed that this type of chart would give people a better feeling about
the community's traffic situation. Ms. Wood agreed and asked that it be created.
3
• Mr. Vandersloot said he feels the community would not accept traffic at less than
LOS D and that the City should be working toward that for all intersections
instead of accepting worse traffic. Mr. Waters indicated that was what this
process is designed to do, by looking at alternatives and the associated traffic
impacts decisions can be made to make improvements.
Mr. Johnson agreed with Ms. Dove's earlier comments and added that residents
in the area resort to bicycles to avoid the summertime traffic. He pointed out
that in Seattle they use specific lanes for in-flow/out-flow to help relieve the peak
hour traffic and asked if it could be done on the peninsula. Mr. Edmonston said
it would be difficult because there are only 2 streets on and off the peninsula.
Mr. Remley asked about how many parking spaces were on peninsula. Mr.
Waters said that was surveyed and it should be in the full document. Ms. Wood
pointed out that parking survey work was just done for the LCP, so it should be
available.
John Corrough added that another area impacted in the summer is Balboa Island
which is an attraction for people within the community as well as tourists.
Marie Marston asked if bus and bicycle routes were covered in the document.
• Mr. Waters stated the full report does include some information on those topics,
however since the City doesn't have as much control over those aspects more
emphasis is placed on traffic issues that can be changed. Ms. Marston added
that they aren't the problem, but may be the solution. Ms. Gardner pointed out
that Exhibit C shows that Newport Beach has a higher use of non -motorized
transportation than any of the adjacent cities.
Mr. Vandersloot asked for two additional documents: 1) table same as Table 7
but look like Table 12—Mr. Waters said that was available; 2) document
explaining rationale for estimating lower employment in the City —Ms. Wood said
the Fiscal Impact Consultant could provide this document. Mr. Waters added
that it was also included as an appendix to the full report.
Karlene Bradley asked if employment numbers included domestic help used in
Newport Coast. Mr. Waters pointed out that the Fiscal Consultant had generated
a separate work product for employment in Newport Coast. Mr. Tescher added
that domestic help would not be included in that report. Ms. Wood pointed out
home offices, time share, golf course and retail stores are included in the report.
Ms. Marston asked if the existing and projected numbers from our model
compare to Caltrans numbers. Mr. Waters stated that Caltrans local staff do not
• believe in models or the modeling tools we use, their projections are based on
historical growth rate.
M
IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items and Schedule
Mr. Tescher provided copies of subcommittee schedules, geographic topics and
element topics. He pointed out there are dates on these documents to help
identify updates of the schedules which will happen throughout the process. He
indicated the next step was the creation of a background report which includes
the studies and issues brought up during presentations and will be a starting
point for the subcommittee discussions.
Ed Siebel asked how specific problems, such as the traffic issue on Balboa Island,
would be addressed in the schedule. Mr. Tescher indicated it could be discussed
in one of the geographic subcommittees. Issues brought up at these meetings
are being tracked and will be passed on to the subcommittees for further
discussion.
John Saunders indicated he had attended a presentation by MiOcean which
included information that might be helpful in our process and suggested they be
invited to a future meeting.
Mike Johnson asked if we would be addressing the school district's future needs.
Mr. Tescher stated even though the school district is independent from the City,
we could bring them into the process.
John Corrough indicated that the Harbor Commission has been working on a
"State of the Harbor" that would be very helpful for the subcommittee to see.
Ms. Wood agreed and asked for an Executive Summary of the document.
Phillip Bettencourt asked how the areas were selected. Ms. Wood indicated that
the GPUC scoping subcommittee recommended the areas and they were
approved by the City Council. Ms. Gardner added that these were also areas
that came up in the Visioning process.
V. Public Comments
No members of the public were present.
0